ORDER :

P.T. Asha, J.

1. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner before this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the dismissal of the suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for recovery of possession and for an injunction from alienation.

2. The suit property is an extent of 0.50.2 cents out of a total extent of 1.25 acres comprised in Old Survey No. 303/2B and New Survey No. 303/2B1A, as per Patta No. 529 situate at Vellanur Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District.

3. The parties are referred to in the same litigative status as in the suit. Plaintiff's case:

4. The plaintiff had instituted the above suit on the following contentions:

The plaintiff would contend that on 28.12.2012, he had purchased the suit schedule property which was a portion of a total extent of 1.25 cents from Meenakshi Ammal and three others. The sale deed was executed on their behalf by their Power of Attorney one P. Ramadoss. It is the case of the plaintiff that after his purchase, he had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of one Meganathan and by a registered Sale Deed dated 06.02.2013, Meganathan had sold 367.5 sq.ft. to one S. Kandhan and thereby, the plaintiff was left with the entire extent of the suit property. He has, since then been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

5. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the Power Agent of the original owners, the said Ramadoss had in the year 1987 developed an extent of 74 cents out of the extent of 1.25 acres into house sites. The said layout was called "Priya Nagar". The plaintiff would further contend that recognizing the right, title and interest of the plaintiff's vendors to the property comprised in S. No. 303/2, the 1st defendant's husband and the 4th and 9th defendants, had purchased house sites in Priya Nagar. The 1st defendant's husband Janakiaraman had purchased Plot Nos. 8 and 8A measuring 3090 sq.ft. in the said lay out under Sale Deed dated 10.11.1995. The said Janakiraman had further purchased Plot No. 6 under the Sale Deed dated 22.05.2016. Thereafter, the said Janakiraman had settled the property on his son J. Murali, who has been arrayed as the 4th defendant herein. The 1st defendant had attested this Settlement Deed as witness. Apart from the property settled on him, the 4th defendant individually purchased Plot No. 5 and the 9th defendant had also purchased a plot in the said layout.

6. While so, on 10.02.2013, when the plaintiff's power agent had visited the suit property he found that the defendants had forcibly entered into the suit property and put up a fencing. The Power Agent immediately protested the same and also lodged a Police Complaint on 18.02.2013. On 18.03.2013, notice was issued by the plaintiff to the 4th defendant. Despite receipt of the notice, the 4th defendant refused to hand over the vacant possession. Therefore, left with no other alternative, the plaintiff had come forward with the above suit under Section 6 of the Act as he had been illegally disposed.

Defendants' case:

7. The first defence which has been raised by the defendants for recovery of possession was that the plaintiff did not have a valid title to the suit property. It was their case that the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff had been executed by P. Ramadoss as power agent when two of the Principals, namely, Meenakshi Animal and Vadivelu had died on 27.01.2001 and 13.12.2006, respectively. [However, the defendants have not let in any evidence to prove that the principals had died prior to the purchase by the plaintiff).

8. The defendants would contend that an extent of 2.24 acres comprised in Survey No. 303/2, Vellanur Village, belonged to the father of the defendants 1 to 3, namely, Ranganathan Mudaliyar and Kuppuswamy Mudaliyar and they were issued with a joint Patta bearing No. 447. In the oral Partition between the two, 44 cents abutting the Main Road was given to Kuppuswamy Mudaliyar and the remaining 1.80 acres