The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for parties to establish lawful ownership and possession of disputed property in property disputes, and the court's reliance on legal principles to determine the outcome.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.146 of 2017 dated 26.02.2019 on the file of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court at Madras contrary to facts & Legal position confirming the decree and judgment pronounced in O.S. No.2251/2017 dated 04.01.2017 on the file of the XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Madras.)

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2019, passed in A.S.No.146 of 2017, on the file of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai confirming the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2017, passed in O.S. No.2251/2017, on the file of the XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3. Suit for permanent injunction.

4. According to the plaintiff, she has purchased the suit property by way of a sale deed dated 09.05.1997 and the suit property with a larger extent was originally owned by Venkatapathy Chettiar and he sold the same to A.Subramani, by way of a sale deed dated 18.11.1953 and the plaintiff had purchased the suit property from the legal heirs of A.Subramani and put up a terraced building and enjoying the same by paying necessary taxes and charges and further, according to the plaintiff, there was a thatched house in the suit property in a dilapidated condition and the defendants, without any authority, attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and hence, according to the plaintiff, the need for the suit for appropriate reliefs.

5. Briefly stated, the defendants resisted the plaintiff's suit contending that the sale deed dated 09.05.1997 projected by the plaintiff is not a genuine transaction and the vendors of the abovesaid sale deed are not the absolute owners of the suit property and further, according to the defendants, their grandmother Muniammal was living in the hut located in the suit property for more than 35 years and after her demise, the defendants are in the occupation of the same and the plaintiff has failed to explain as to how she had acquired title to the extent of 805 sq.ft. and the superstructure put up thereon. The plaintiff has not purchased the suit property from the lawful owners and hence, the suit deserves dismissal.

6. In support of the plaintiff's case, PW1 was examined, Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On the side of the defendants, DW1 was examined, Exs.B1 to B10 were marked.

7. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made, the Courts below were pleased to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for. Impugning the same, the defendants have preferred the present second appeal.

8. The suit property is described as the land along with a terraced building including two dilapidated huts, measuring an extent of 805 sq.ft. in R.S.No.1541/4 (part) bearing Door No.34, Ponnan Street, Chennai – 7 bounded with specific boundaries and with specific measurements and according to the plaintiff, she has purchased the same by way of the sale deed dated 09.05.1997, marked as Ex.A1. The parent title deed dated 18.11.1953, has been marked as Ex.A2. The property tax demand card, water charges card, EB charges card have been marked as Exs.A3 to A5 and the Encumbrance certificate has been marked as Ex.A8 on the side of the plaintiff. All the abovesaid documents cumulatively would go to show that the plaintiff is in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

9. Though the defendants would put forth the case that their grandmother Muniammal had been in the possession and enjoyment of the hut located in the suit property, however, the defendants have not explained as to on what basis their grandmother Muniammal had acquired title, possession and enjoyment of the abovesaid hut and from whom she had derived the title, possession and enjoyment with reference to the sam