B. KUMARA BABU Vs. UMARANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having aggrieved of the Order passed by the VII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.P.No.132 of 2005 dtd. 6/7/2018, the appellant herein has preferred this appeal.

(2.) Originally, a suit was laid by the appellant herein seeking permission of the Court to institute the suit as an indigent person and to direct the defendants to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit property bearing Door No.16, Plot No.23, 2nd Cross Street, Sakthivel Nagar, Peravallur, Chennai-82, comprised in T.S.No.932 and morefully described in the schedule which is said to be in the illegal occupation of the defendants and to direct the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.5000.00 per month being the damages for use and occupation of the schedule property from the date of plaint till the date of delivery of possession and for costs.

(3.) On behalf of the plaintiff, it is averred that the above said suit property was purchased by his adoptive father late K.Radhakrishna Naidu with his self earnings from the Chellappa Naidu Co-op.House Society Ltd., under document No.1594/1972 registered at the office of Sub-Registrar, Sembium. The said Radhakrishna Naidu was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property as sole and lawful owner and that he constructed a house on the vacant land with his own money and he was paying tax to the Corporation of Chennai from 1978 onwards. He was further averred that as Radhakrishna Naidu had no issues and the plaintiff's natural father P.Balaraman gave the plaintiff in adoption to the said K.Radhakrishna Naidu on 20/10/1968. The plaintiff's wife and adoptive mother died on 7/1/1987 leaving the plaintiff and his father as her legal heirs and the adoptive father died on 7/11/1987 at the residence of Balaraman. It is further averred that his adoptive father had brother by name Ramachandran and a sister by name Sakunthala, they were not affectionate towards K.Radhakrishna Naidu and neglected him. But the plaintiff from the time of his adoption was very loving and affectionate to his father and so he had executed a settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff on 9/9/1987 and in the said deed, the plaintiff's adoptive father categorically stated that his brother and sister are living separately from him. The plaintiff's father also executed a Will on 9/10/1987 bequeathing the schedule of property in all powers of alienation and so plaintiff filed O.P.No.325 of 2002 for probate of the Will and orders was passed by this Court in his favour and so as per the orders of this Court in O.P.No.325 of 2002, the plaintiff is absolute and lawful owner of the schedule property. The 1 st defendant is the daughter of Ramachandran and brother of plaintiff's father and her parents after the death of Radhakrishna Naidu obtained a relationship certificate from Tahsildar, suppressing the truth stating that they are the relatives of late Radhakrishna Naidu and the Tahsildar without making the necessary enquiory and issued the relationship certificate and on the basis of that certificate, the Tahsildar issued a patta and on the basis of patta the defendants started interfering with the schedule property. The plaintiff on coming to know the grant of patta to the parents of the 1 st defendant submitted a petition before the Collector of Chennai on 10/5/2000 for cancellation of patta issued in favour of Ramachandran and Sakunthala and the Collector, after a detailed enquiry has cancelled the patta issued in their favour by its order dtd. 17/8/2001 and directing the Tahsildar to carry out the necessary chances in all the revenue records. The 1 st defendant had filed W.P.No.32840 of 2001 against the plaintiff and the Collector to quash the order passed by the Collector dtd. 17/8/2001 and the same is pending. His father late K.Radhakrishna Naidu induced one Thangasamy as a tenant in the suit property and taking advantage of her position as wife of Ramachandran filed RCOP No.1346 of 1988 and the said tenant denied the title of the 1st defendant's husband but it was ordered eviction and appeal filed also dismissed. Taking advantage of the order of eviction, the 1st defendant took possession in E.P.No.221 of 1998 on 4/9/1998 and the 1st defendant and her sons and daughter are illegal possession of the suit property preventing the plaintiff from enjoying the suit property by virtue of the Will and the order passed by this Court in O.P.No.325 of 2001.