KANNIGA Vs. S SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S.No.391 of 2010 on the file of the Learned VIIIth Assistant Judge City Civil Court, Chennai, is the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.1488 of 2010. The defendant/respondent in I.A.No.5137 of 2010 in O.S.No.391 of 2010 on the file of the VIIIth Assistant Judge City Civil Court, Chennai, is the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.1487 of 2010.

(2.) The revision in C.R.P. No.1488 of 2010 has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.391 of 2010 pending on the file of the Learned VIIIth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and the revision in C.R.P.No.1487 of 2010 has been filed, as against the order passed in I.A.No.5137 of 2010 in O.S.No.391 of 2010, appointing an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property. In the plaint in O.S.No.391 of 2010, the respondent/plaintiff stated that he has purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 29.09.2006 from one Govindasamy, son of Murugan and as there was some correction in the sale deed, a rectification deed was also executed and registered on 10.01.2007 and from the date of the original sale deed, he is in possession of the suit property and he had applied for plan sanction for purpose of putting up construction and the plan was also sanctioned on 29.10.2008 and now, he has taken steps to put up construction in the suit property and the defendant/revision petitioner, who is the owner of the adjacent plot bearing plot No.17 attempts to encroach and trespass into the plaintiff's property and therefore, he filed a suit for injunction, restraining the revision petitioner from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The Schedule of property mentioned in the suit is a plot bearing Nos.17-A and 18-A, Sri Nagar Colony, Annex 1st Street, Kolathur, Chennai-99, comprised in Survey No.58/4 with specific boundaries ad measuring 4,785 sq.ft. This plaint is sought to be strike off by the revision petitioner for the following reasons:-

(3.) It is submitted by Mr.K.M.Vijayan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that admittedly, the property in Survey No.58/4 in Kolathur, Chennai-99, was originally belonged to one Duraisamy Naidu, and the total extent of the property was 1 acre 40 cents and under a deed of settlement dated 27.08.1960, the said Duraisamy Naidu, settled the total extent in favour of his grand children, through his son Subramani Naidu and daughter-in-law Jayammal, giving his son and daughter-in-law, life estate over the property to be enjoyed by them for their lifetime, without any power of alienation. Though his son Subramani Naidu, was given only life estate, he has sold an extent of 31 cents out of the total extent of 1 acre 40 cents in favour of Arumaga Naickar and Sundari Ammal, by two different sale deeds dated 11.08.1967 and 12.09.1967. Thereafter, the said Sundari Ammal, has sold 31 cents to one Govindasamy , the vendor of the respondent herein under the sale deed dated 28.05.1981.