LAWS(MAD)-2009-2-59

BANU MITHRA Vs. M BALU

Decided On February 09, 2009
BANU MITHRA Appellant
V/S
M. BALU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1.(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order and decretal order dated 30.09.2008 made in I.A.No.3805 of 2007 in I.A.No.980 of 2007 in O.S.No.237 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif, Alandur.)The petitioners/respondents/defendants have filed this Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 30.09.2008 in I.A.No.3805 of 2007 in I.A.No.980 of 2007 in O.S.No.237 of 2007 passed by the learned District Munsif, Alandur in allowing the application filed by the respondents/petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) THE trial Court while passing orders in I.A.No.3805 of 2007 has inter alia observed that 'since the construction has been made during the pendency of the suit, the same has to be removed in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Since the respondents/defendants have not put up the construction before the interim suspension order dated 12.10.2007 and as they have not obtained any treatment from the Honourable High Court to make construction during the period of interim suspension, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition is to be allowed and that the contention of the respondents/defendants that they have invested huge amount and they have obtained approval plan for construction does not give any right to them to make construction during the pendency of the suit and resultantly, allowed the application.'

(3.) THE respondents/petitioners/plaintiffs have filed I.A.No.3805/07 in O.S.237/07 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Alandur inter alia stating that the suit property originally has been a vacant land and that they have entered into the suit property and put a thatched roof for the purpose of living along with their family members in 1961 and in 1980, they have put up additional pucca construction by spending an amount of Rs.4.5 lakhs and that they are in possession of the suit property for the past 46 years in a visible and exclusive manner much to the hostility of the true owner and therefore, perfected title over the suit property by means of adverse possession, etc.,