The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement to property under The Tamil Nadu Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971 is based on the legal heirship of the original allottee, and misrepresentation can invalidate an allotment. The Act also restricts the maintainability of certain suits related to property disputes.

Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned.

2. Since the facts and circumstances arising in both the second appeals are the same and as the issues arising for determination are connected, a common judgment is passed.

3. The second appeal in S.A.No.1266 of 2007, has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 27. 2007, made in A.S.No.427 of 2004, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai, Fast Track Court No.III, Chennai, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 27. 2004, made in O.S.No.5848 of 1998, on the file of the VIth Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

4. The second appeal in S.A.No.1267 of 2007, has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 27. 2007, made in A.S.No.428 of 2004, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai, Fast Track Court No.III, Chennai, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 27. 2004, made in O.S.No.15436 of 1996, on the file of the VIth Assistant City Civil Court,Chennai.

5. The original suit in O.S.No.5848 of 1998, had been filed by the plaintiff, namely, C.Suseela, praying for a judgment and decree against the defendants therein to direct the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the schedule mentioned plot to the plaintiff with all fixtures and for a direction to the defendants 3 and 4 to pay future damages at Rs.200/- per month from the date of the plaint till the date of delivery of possession of the schedule mentioned plot. The plaintiff in the said suit had also prayed for a mandatory injunction to direct the defendants 1 and 2 to execute the final sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the schedule mentioned plot. It was also prayed that the defendants 3 and 4 ought to be restrained from putting up any construction in the schedule mentioned plot and from getting electricity and water connection by way of a permanent injunction.

6. The first defendant is the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board represented by its Chairman, the second defendant is the Estate Officer of the said Board and the third defendant in the suit is Anthony Ammal, wife of Chinnappan and the mother of the plaintiff. The fourth defendant, mamely, Rita, is the sister of the plaintiff.

7. The case of the plaintiff is that her father Chinnappan was allotted a plot of land at No.96, New Door No.343, Old Door No.297, C.Kalyanapuram, Vyasarpadi, Madras. The plot was allotted to Chinnappan by the second defendant in the year 1959-60. After the allotment, the plaintiffs father was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same. Chinnappan had died, on 16. 1971. He had executed a Koorucheetu in the year, 1970, bequeathing the plot allotted by the defendants 1 and 2, in favour of the plaintiff. He had also bequeathed another property at No.121, Kannigapuram 4th street, Vyasarpadi, Madras, in favour of his daughter Rita, the fourth defendant in the suit. After the demise of the plaintiffs father Chinnappan, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the plot. Since the plaintiff and her husband had been paying the installments due to the defendants 1 and 2, she had submitted an application to the second defendant for transferring the allotment in her favour.

8. After the necessary verification, the second defendant had directed the plaintiff to pay the remaining installments. Pursuant to the said direction, the plaintiff had paid the entire amount due, on 33. 1984. Thereafter, the defendants 1 and 2 had entered into a lease cum sale agreement with the plaintiff. As per the said agreement, the plaintiff had to pay the entire sale price, within a period of 10 years upto the year 1994. Accordingly, the plaintiff had paid the sale price. On 33. 1994, the first defendant had issued a No Objection Certificate for the construction of a building in the plot and had also permitted the plaintiff to obtain electricity connection and also water and drainage connection.

9. In spite of the plaintiff paying the entire sale consideratio