ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2010 passed in O.S.No.402 of 1998 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Poonamallee, thereby dismissing the suit for delivery of possession of the suit schedule property against the petitioner herein.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. The petitioner filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for delivery of possession of the suit schedule property and also for permanent injunction.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner of the property comprised in Survey No.111/2 ad-measuring 18 cents situated at Ramapuram, Chennai. The said property along with other properties were settled in his favour by his father Kistappa Naicker by a Settlement Deed dated 04.01.1961 registered vide Document No.29 of 1961 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Saidapet. While being so, the 2nd respondent herein claiming to be a Power of Attorney for three persons, who are the daughters of one Venugopal Reddiar, began to deal with the plaintiff's property. Out of 18 cents of the plaintiff's property, the 2nd respondent created a sale deed in favour of the 1st respondent in respect of the North Western portion of the plaintiff's property admeasuring 2123 ½ sq.ft in Survey No.111/2, situated at Ramapuram, Chennai.

4. In pursuant to the said sale deed, the 1st respondent on 30.03.1998 trespassed into the suit schedule property with ulterior motives. Since the sale deed is neither valid nor binding on the petitioner, the 1st respondent trespassed into the property and put up a hut. Though the petitioner stopped the workers of the 1st respondent, but failed. Therefore, immediately the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, D4-Valasaravakkam Police Station, Arcot Road, Chennai. Even after the receipt of the same, the police did not take any action as against the respondents herein. Therefore, the petitioner caused a legal notice on 11.04.1998 and filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for recovery of possession from the 1st respondent in respect of the suit property.

5. Resisting the same, the respondents 1 and 2 filed written statement stating that the petitioner has never been in possession of the suit schedule property, much less within six months prior to the suit. Therefore, the suit itself is not maintainable.

6. On 05.11.1942, one Venugopal Reddiar purchased the suit property along with other properties from his vendor Padrachala Mudaliar under a registered sale deed vide Document No.355/1942. Thereafter, he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and in the year 1946, he executed a registered Will in favour of his wife and daughters and his minor son. The property comprised in Survey No.111/2 is the suit schedule property, which was allotted to the minor son as per the Will executed by the said Venugopal Reddiar, who died as a bachelor and as such, the other legal heirs of the said Venugopal Reddiar executed a Kurchit dated 29.09.1970 and accordingly allotted to one of the daughters, namely, Saroja and she executed a registered Power of Attorney dated 28.02.1997 in favour of the 2nd respondent to sell the suit property. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent executed sale deed on 12.10.1997 registered vide document No.749 of 1997 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Saidapet. Right from the date of purchase, the 1st respondent is in exclusive peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and her husband also put up a compound wall in the property and running a company under the name and style of “Ponnesan Kitchen Equipments”. Thereafter, all the revenue records were mutated in her name and obtained electricity service connection and paying all the revenue dues. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

7. On the side of the petitioner, examined PW.1 and PW.2 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A15. On the side of the respondents, exami