The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for parties to provide evidence to support their claims, especially in property ownership disputes, and the court's reliance on established legal principles to determine ownership and possession.

The suit is filed praying for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of the schedule mentioned property and consequently to restrain the defendants and their agents from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned property. It is also prayed that the show cause notice bearing No.J3/74603/2000 dated 25. 2001 issued by the first defendant be declared as null and void and consequently, the defendants be restrained by an order of injunction from taking any action under the notice. It is further prayed that defendants 1 and 2 and their agents be restrained from in any way disturbing possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by taking action on the basis of the aforesaid show cause notice.

2. The plaintiffs have averred to in the plaint as follows:-

They are the owners of the property measuring an extent of 3880 sq.mtrs with the building comprised in T.S.No.5-B (S.No.5/15) Block No.14, Periakoodal Village bearing door No.89, Brewary Road, A-Block Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 102 morefully described in the suit schedule, having purchased the same in four plots under four sale deeds dated 17. 1995. The plaintiffs were put in possession by their vendors lawfully and the plaintiffs have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned property. The plaintiffs vendor M/s.United Breweries Limited, a Public Limited Company acquired a large extent of land by deed of sale dated 18th September 1915 including the land now purchased by the plaintiffs herein. After several acquisition proceedings, the predecessor in title owned and possessed 4189 sq.mtrs of land together with an old dilapidated building. The provision of the Tamiladu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act was applied to the Company land and an extent of 309 sq.mtrs of land was acquired by the Urban Land Ceiling authorities by a resolution dated 30.9.1989. The plaintiffs were issued with patta on 211. 1996. On behalf of the family trust of the plaintiffs, a request was made on 212. 1996 to the Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai for allotment of 309 sq.mtrs of land which was acquired under Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1978 at the hands of the plaintiffs vendor. The said request was turned down by the Government holding that it was beyond the capacity of the Trust to purchase the said portion of the land which was valued at Rs.58.37 lakhs. The first defendant and the officers of the State and Central Government have written to the plaintiffs vendor requesting the building standing on the schedule mentioned property for their use. The Inspector of Exhibitions in the Directorate of Advertisements and Visual Publicity, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has also written to the plaintiffs vendor on 212. 1967 to take the building on the schedule mentioned property on rent for conducting International Fair. The first defendant issued a show cause notice bearing reference No.J3/74603/2000 dated 25. 2001 requiring the plaintiffs to show cause as to why patta issued in favour of the plaintiffs dated 211. 1996 should not be cancelled. The patta was originally issued in favour of M/s.United Breweries, the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs and thereafter the same was transferred in the name of the plaintiffs on the basis of the sale deed in their names. The Urban Land Ceiling authorities maintain records which disclose that the patta and revenue entries were in the name of the previous owner M/s.United Breweries from 1915. If at all there had been any acquisition proceedings by the Corporation ending with the alleged award as on 33. 1953, the Government of India would not have given licence to run an industrial unit after four years of the alleged acquisition and passing of award. The Urban Land Ceiling authorities, as on 20.2.1989 have made a specific finding as to the ownership of the same with the plaintiffs. The building plan was approved for construc