S K KRISHNAN Vs. AMBAL TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 17-4-2006, passed in I. A. No. 5557/2006 in O. S. No. 8909/1979, on the file of the XIV Asst. City Civil Court, Chennai.

(2.) THE 2nd defendant is the revision petitioner before this Court. The suit is filed by respondents/plaintiffs for a declaration to declare the plaintiffs' title to the suit property and also to restrain the defendants by way of permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession of the plaint schedule property.

(3.) THE respondents/plaintiffs state that the 1st plaintiff Thiru Elliah Reddiar (since deceased) was the absolute owner of an extent of 1 acre 87 cents in Survey No. 76. T. S. No. 87, Block No. 1 in Ekkattuthangal village, Madras 97. This property being his ancestral property the 1st plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale with the 2nd plaintiff on 27-3-1975 under which the 1st plaintiff agreed to sell the said property to the 2nd plaintiff or his nominee. Under the terms of the agreement, the 1st plaintiff agreed to allow the 2nd plaintiff to plot out the said land and obtain lay-out and sell the same to any intending buyers and the 1st plaintiff agreed to receive the sale consideration for each of the plot in instalments either from the 2nd plaintiff or his nominee. On 27-3-1975 the 1st plaintiff as per the terms of the agreement of sale delivered possession of the said land to the 2nd plaintiff. The 2nd plaintiff after obtaining possession of the said ground, plotted out the same into different plots and sold to the intending purchasers and after receiving the sale consideration executed a sale deed in favour of them. The 3rd plaintiff is the allottee of plot No. 40 having agreed to purchase the same under the lease-cum-sale agreement executed by the 2nd plaintiff. Therefore the plaintiffs submit that they are in lawful possession and enjoyment of plot No. 40 in the capacity of owners/title holders. The 3rd plaintiff subsequently has also put up a superstructure in August 1979 in the said plot. Thus such being the position, the defendants who have no manner of right whatsoever in the said property are attempting to interfere with their possession and enjoyment. Therefore, the suit has been laid for the above reliefs. The plaintiffs also have filed a police complaint against the defendants for their unlawful interference.