SASHIKALA Vs. S A SAHIDA BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall govern these two appeals.

(2.) THE plaintiff aggrieved over the rejection of her request by both the Courts below in a suit for permanent injunction that the respondents/defendants should be restrained from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and also the grant of a decree in the counter claim made by the respondents seeking permanent injunction against the plaintiff that she should not interfere with the possession and exclusive enjoyment of the suit property, has took it on two appeals. The first appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Hence, these two appeals at the instance of the plaintiff.

(3.) THE plaintiff filed the suit for the above relief inter alia stating that she became the absolute owner of the suit property in R. S. No. 1833/14 measuring 2 grounds and 244 square feet at Cutchery Road, Mylapore, by virtue of a settlement deed dated 9. 8. 1972, executed by one T. S. Sadasivam; that from the time onwards, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same; that in order to develop the property, she demolished the old building; that now, it is a vacant site; that she has put up a small shed; that on the north, the property measuring 2 grounds and 650 square feet situated in R. S. Nos. 1834/13 and 1833/16 at Kalvivaru Street, belonged to one Malini subramaniam and also the property measuring 2 grounds and 1634 square feet situated in R. S. No. 1833/15 and 1834/3 at Kalvivaru Street, Mylapore, belonged to one Parvathi Srinivasan; that for the purpose of development, a sanctioned building plan was obtained from the M. M. D. A. and Corporation of Chennai, in which the suit property has been shown as a vacant site; that the promoter constructed a building in those two properties as per the sanctioned plan; that each of the defendant is owning a flat in the said building; that the defendants who have purchased the proportionate undivided share in the land, previously owned by Malini Subramaniam and Parvathi Srinivasan, under different sale deeds, do not have any right, title or interest in the suit property; that they are having access to their flats from Kalvivaru Street; that the plaintiff has not conveyed any portion of the suit property to them; that there were compound walls around the suit property; that on 10. 11. 1994, the defendants attempted to trespass into the suit property; that she lodged a police complaint, and under the circumstances, there arose a necessity to file the suit.