N.J. ROZY AND ORS. Vs. LAWRENCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2008 passed by the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in A.S. No. 566 of 2006 confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court / V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dated 20.04.2006 in O.S. No. 7325 of 2000 wherein and by which the suit filed for delivery of vacant possession after removing the unauthorised superstructure and for mandatory injunction to demolish the superstructure put up the defendant, was dismissed.

(2.) THE suit filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs before the Courts below was based on the allegation that the suit property was originally belonged to one M/s. V. Ramachandran and V. Madanagopal, and pursuant to the assignment of the same to one Visalakshi Ammal, Secretary of Gokul Slum Workers Committee, by the Government of Madras, under the Scheme of Welfare and Development of Slum People, she secured it by virtue of sale deed dated 27.8.1938 in favour of Collector of Chengalpattu. It is the case of the plaintiffs that when the suit property was sub -divided among other down -trodden and depressed inhabitants of the locality, one Cruz Natesan, father -in -law of the first plaintiff was one of the beneficiaries in which he secured land of 2196 sq.ft. in T.S. No. 35, Block No. 35, under S. No. 19/2 in No. 115 Kotturpuram Village, Chengalpet District, where he lived with his family till death by putting up a thatched roof. The further case of the plaintiffs is that after the death of Cruz Natesan, the suit property was partitioned among his two sons, viz., late Das and late C.N. Nicholos, viz., husband of the first plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 to 7. It is also stated that while the defendant, who used to live with their family as servant boy, was allowed by the plaintiffs even after his marriage, to occupy a portion of the premises as a permissive occupant, with an ulterior motive and with the mala fide intention to convert himself as legal heir of late Cruz Natesan so as to claim ownership and title over the suit property, manipulated certain documents and created payment receipts for the property tax in his name. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that late C.N. Nicholos, his elder brother Das, Philomina and Theresa alone are the legal heirs of late Cruz Natesan and since the daughters Philomina and Theresa executed deed of Release in favour of the two brothers even before the execution of the partition deed, relinquishing their right over the suit property, according to the plaintiffs, they are in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same. As the defendant has no authority or right to claim ownership or to extend his occupation by putting up any construction in the vacant site, the suit was filed.

(3.) BEFORE the trial Court, the first plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exs. A.1 to A.22. To nullify the case of the plaintiffs, the defendant examined himself as D.W.1 besides examining one Caroline as D.W.2 and marked Exs. B.1 to B.15.