The plaintiff who lost before the trial Court as also before the first appellate Court, is before this Court now by way of the present Second Appeal, challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2013 in A.S.No.11 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Kanchipuram.

2. According to the appellant/plaintiff, in the year 1960, himself, his father and his brothers had partitioned their ancestral property by way of partition deed dated 30.03.1960, registered as Doc.No.837/1960 on the file of S.R.P., Poonamallee. Out of the 12 shops comprised in the building, one shop bearing new Door No.226 was allotted to the plaintiff, one shop bearing new Door No.227 was allotted to the plaintiff's grand mother Late Krishnaveni, who in turn bequeathed the said shop to the plaintiff by way of a registered Will, dated 29.08.1979. Thus, according to the appellant/plaintiff, he is in possession of the two shops bearing Door Nos.226 and 227. The said shops have electricity connections and have been duly assessed by Kunrathur Town Panchayat and the plaintiff has been paying the electricity charges and property tax, regularly.

3. It is the further case of the appellant/plaintiff that on 08.11.1997, the 2nd and 3rd defendants, under directions from the 1st defendant, had, all of a sudden, without any notice whatsoever to the plaintiff or his tenants, assembled with poclain and bulldozers in the Street in which the plaintiff's buildings were situated, for demolishing the same. Immediately, the plaintiff's father rushed to the site and pleaded with the authorities of defendants 1 to 3 not to demolish the shops. Even though the plaintiff's father produced title deeds in respect of the said shops, the authorities went ahead with demolition, whereby the said shops, upto 12 feet from the Road, was demolished. Challenging the act of the defendants that it is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, the plaintiff filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.18089 of 1997 before this Court and the said Petition was disposed of, with an observation to file a suit before the proper Court of competent jurisdiction. Moreover, at the time of admission, it was represented on behalf of the respondents/defendants that a portion of the construction put up by the plaintiff was on the encroached road portion belonging to the Government. While so, it is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that even if he is found to have encroached any part of the Government property, he cannot be evicted or dispossessed except in the manner contemplated under the Tami Nadu Land Encroachment Act.

4. While so, according to the third defendant, the plaintiff and the adjoining land owners of the Road, have slowly, step by step encroached the Road and put up construction in the Road and therefore, the width of the Road got reduced leading to traffic congestion in the suit Village. The public vehicle riders and bus drivers suffered a lot and they made a representation to the defendants to remove the encroachments on the Road. After considering the representation and measuring and demarcating the encroachment, the defendants issued a notice to the plaintiff and other encroachers as per the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act and the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, but the plaintiff and other encroachers refused to receive the said notice and hence it was served by affixture. Therefore, according to the third defendant, when the plaintiff was very well aware about the removal of encroachments well before they were removed, there is no necessity on the part of the defendants to compensate the plaintiff and restore the suit premises to the original condition. According to the third defendant, they have already laid a road on the encroached portion, after removal of the encroachment, i.e. where the buildings were demolished and now it is being used as a Road by the entire public.

5. After analyzing the available oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit, against