CORPORATION OF MADRAS Vs. M PARTHASARATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second appeals and the writ petition have arisen under the following circumstances: There are four plaintiffs. Munusamy is the plaintiff in O.S.No.2207/92, Manickam in O.S.No.2345/92, Anandaraj in O.S.No.2346/92 and Parthasarathy in O.S.No.2347/92. There was a joint trial as common question for decision was involved and common judgments were delivered by both the Courts. The plaintiffs filed the different suits against the Corporation of Madras, which is the appellant in all the appeals and the second respondent in the writ petition, the first respondent being the Collector of Madras, for a permanent injunction restraining the Corporation of Madras from interfering with their possession of the property in the respective suits. According to them, each purchased 1 ground 1200 sq.ft.in S.Nos.31 and 53 part (Old S.Nos.59 and 64/1-B) corresponding to T.S.No.2/1 part, sub divided as T.S.No,2/5 in Block No.15, Aminjikarai Village, Pulla Reddy Avenue, Madras-29, under sale deeds exhibited as Exs.A-1 to A-4, all bearing date 10-1-1992. They claimed to be in possession.

(2.) The Corporation of Madras resisted the suits claiming that the properties belonged to it absolutely and the plaintiffs have no right. According to the Corporation of Madras, the alleged patta granted to the plaintiffs was cancelled and the suit for bare injunction without the relief of declaration is not maintainable. The vendors of the plaintiffs are one Rajalakshmi and Janaki. They had obtained patta in their names. The second defendant in the suit, viz. the Junior Engineer, Division No.68, Old No.73. Madras Corporation objected to the fence in respect of the lands of the plaintiffs and directed the uprooting of the stone pillars from the lands on 11-3-1992. There were complaints before the Sub Inspector of Police, K-3 Aminjikarai Police Station. The father of the plaintiffs produced the original documents before the second defendant, who informed them that the properties in dispute belonged to the Corporation of Madras.

(3.) There was a joint trial and common evidence was given. The plaintiff in O.S.No.2207/82 was examined as P.W.1 and the respective sale deeds, as already noted, were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-4. The plaintiffs also marked the Town Survey Lands Registers as Exs.A-5 and A-10 apart from marking certain letters and certificates.