(Prayer in Appl.No.3820/19: Application is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to allow the above application and reject the plaint in C.S.No.159 of 2019 as not maintainable and barred by law.

OA.No.205/19: Application is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to grant an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant her men, agents, servants or any person or persons acting on their behalf or under them in any manner whatsoever from interfering with my peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property or any part of it pending disposal of the above suit.)

1. This application has been filed seeking rejection of the plaint in CS No.159 of 2019 as not maintainable and barred by law.

2. The Suit in CS No.159 of 2019 has been filed by the respondent seeking a declaration that he has perfected title by adverse possession and for relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, her men, agents, servants or any other person or persons acting on her behalf from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff of the schedule mentioned property and for the cost of the suit.

3. According to the applicant, the suit property which is a portion of New No.12, Old Door No.15, Nana Street, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017, belonged to her Late father Kandasamy Mudaliar, he having purchased the same, under the Registered Sale Deed, bearing Document No.300 of 1932. It is also claimed that said Kandasamy Mudaliar executed a registered deed of settlement, in favour of his wife Mrs.Kamalambal, on 09.07.1962. The original owner Kandasamy Mudaliar died on 16.05.1973. Pursuant to the settlement deed, the Revenue records were mutated in the name of the mother of the petitioner Kamalambal. It is also stated that the mother of the applicant Kamalambal had executed a Will bequeathing her properties in favour of the applicant and her sister. The property subject matter of the suit was bequeathed in equal share to the applicant and her sister Rajeshwari. This court has also granted Probate to the said Will, in OP No.567 of 2000 by an order dated 01.02.2002. It is the further claim of the applicant that an area of 500 sq.ft. in the Suit property was in occupation of the respondent’s father. The respondent attempted to trespass over the remaining portion of the property as well when the said attempt was prevented, the respondent had filed a suit in OS No.3571 of 2015 on the file of the 6th Assistant City Civil Court, seeking a permanent injunction claiming to be in possession of the entire property.

4. It is stated that in the said plaint, the respondent had claimed that he has perfected title by adverse possession. An application for interim injunction was also filed in IA No.8969 of 2015, which came to be dismissed by order dated 05.08.2015. During the year 2005, the respondent attempted to convert the portion in his occupation into commercial use and a suit was filed by the applicant in OS No.3202 of 2005, restraining such user. The said suit came to be decreed. Since the respondent and his father failed to pay the rents payable by them, the applicant had launched the Rent control proceedings in RCOP No.207 of 2008, seeking an order of eviction. The said Rent Control Original Petition was allowed directing the eviction by order dated 10.01.2017 and the Appeal filed by the respondent against the order in RCOP No.207 of 2008, is said to be pending in RCA No.319 of 2017 on the file of the Appellate Authority.

5. According to the applicant, the present suit is an abuse of process of law. It is also claimed that the suit for a declaration that the plaintiff had perfected title by adverse possession will not lie. In the above factual backdrop, the applicant has come forward with this application seeking rejection of plaint i