Mere possession however long it may be would not ripen into possessory title.

(A.S.No.441 of 1998 has been filed under Section 96 and Cross Objection No.33 of 2000 has been filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, both against the judgment and decree dated 13.4.1998 rendered in O.S.No.14770 of 1996 by the VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.)

M. Thanikachalam, J.

The plaintiffs, having failed in their attempt, to evict the respondents/defendants from the suit properties, have come to this Court, as appellants.

2. The defendants 1 and 3 to 7, aggrieved by some of the findings rendered by the trial Court, have preferred the cross-objection.

3. The parties are referred, in this appeal and cross-objection, as arrayed in O.S.No.14770 of 1996.

4. The brief facts, regarding the plaintiffs case:

(a) The suit properties, originally belonged to the Corporation of Madras, from whom one Krishnadoss Lala and his brother had purchased the same, under a registered sale deed, dated 19.4.1944. In the partition, dated 5.5.1968, between Krishnadoss Lala and his brother, the suit properties were allotted to the share of Krishnadoss Lala. After his demise, the suit properties devolved upon his heirs. The heirs of Krishnadoss Lala and two others, by name Mohamed Idris and K.Peer Mohideen, entered into an agreement, under which it was agreed that the properties should be released from the notification of the year 1973, issued by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board. From the owners of the suit properties, as well as from the agreement holders, the plaintiffs have purchased the suit 'A' schedule property, for valuable consideration, on 30.9.1986. Thus, the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit properties.

(b) The Corporation of Madras, had, erroneously, transferred the 'A' schedule property, to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, on 17.12.1973 and thereafter, the same was treated as 'slum area'. Thereafter, at the instance of the plaintiffs' vendors, the Corporation of Madras, informed the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, that a resolution would be passed, cancelling the earlier notification, thereby confirming the sale in favour of Krishnadoss Lala. Pursuant to the action taken by the plaintiffs' vendors, for vacating the persons, who are residing in the slum, and towards the repayment of the amount, spent by the Slum Clearance Board, for carrying out improvement works in the area, a sum of Rs.1,12,950/= was remitted by the vendors of the plaintiffs' on 8.5.1986, in favour of the Slum Clearance Board. Thereafter, some persons, residing in the slum, have vacated the premises, after receiving the compensation also. The Government of Tamil Nadu, issued a Notification, cancelling the Kamaraj Colony Slum at New Boag Slum in Madras as a 'slum area' in and by G.O.Ms.No.831 Housing and Urban Development, dated 16.5.1991. Thus, the plaintiffs' vendors had transferable right over the property, which was transferred in favour of the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit properties, at present.

(c) The De-notification of the land, from 'slum area', had been issued at the instance of the plaintiffs, who had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.1283 of 1989, questioning the inaction of the Government, in not removing the slum dwellers from the suit premises, which was allowed by this Court on 10.1.1990, directing the Slum Clearance Board, to take steps to get the slum dwellers settled elsewhere and put the plaintiffs in possession of the land, free from any encumbrance. Aggrieved by the order in W.P.No.1283 of 1989, the defendants, along with some others, as third parties, have preferred an appeal in Writ Appeal No.272 of 1990 and a Division Bench of this Court, setting aside the order of possession, observed that 'the question of putting the plaintiffs in possession should be decided by separate, appropriate process, at the instance of the parties'. In view of the same, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit, for recovery of possession.

(d) The defendants do no