The assertion of lawful title is incompatible with the assertion of title by adverse possession. The plaint must disclose a cause of action to sue for a declaration of title by adverse possession.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This application has been filed to reject the plaint in C.S.No.80 of 2021 filed by the respondents 1 to 3.

This plaint has been filed under Order IV Rule 1 of O.S.Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C., praying for a judgment and decree against the defendants herein as follows:-

(i) for a declaration, declaring that the plaintiffs prescribed title to the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession viz., Survey No.353/1, Perambur Village, Perambur Purasawalkam Taluk of an extent of 4200 sq.ft. with land and building bearing old door no.57-A and New door no.72, Perambur High Road, Chennai – 600 011;

(ii) for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants their men, agent and servants from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession of the plaint schedule property;

(iii) for cost of the suit; and

(iv) for such other order or orders as this Court may deem file and proper in the circumstances of the case.)

1. The suit was filed for a declaration that the plaintiffs have acquired prescriptive title to the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession and for a consequential permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs'' peaceful possession of the said suit schedule property.

2. The first, second and third plaintiffs are the widow, daughter and brother, respectively, of the late P.K.Rajendran.

3. The sixth defendant, the Director General of Police, has presented this application to reject the plaint. The application for rejection of plaint is on the grounds that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action and that the suit is barred by law.

4. Oral arguments on behalf of the applicants / sixth defendant were advanced by Mr.Ramanlaal, learned Additional Advocate General (AAG); and on behalf of the plaintiffs by Mr.M.Balasubramaniam, learned counsel.

5. The first submission of learned AAG was that the plaintiffs are encroachers and that proceedings were initiated against the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs under the applicable provisions of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1975 (the TN Public Premises Act). The next contention of learned AAG was that the suit constitutes an abuse of process because the present suit was filed to pre-empt further action pursuant to the order dated 04.02.2020 in W.P.No.21651 of 2019. He also pointed out that criminal proceedings were initiated against the third respondent and that the said proceedings are pending before the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate / Special Court of Exclusive Trial for Land Grabbing Cases, Chennai, in C.C.No.1398 of 2013. He also submitted that a portion of the encroached land ad measuring about 2600 sq.ft. was recovered in such proceedings. All these material facts were suppressed by the plaintiffs and, therefore, learned AAG submitted that the plaint is liable to be rejected.

6. With regard to the claim for a declaration of title by way of adverse possession, learned AAG submitted that the plaint is vague and lacks particulars as to when the plaintiffs'' possession became adverse to the real owner of the property. By drawing reference to the plaint, learned AAG pointed that the plaintiffs referred to partition deed bearing Document No.1580/1915 but did not file the said document. He further submitted that the partition deed of 1915 expressly excludes lands described as ''Police Line Lands''. He also pointed out that the plaintiffs, thereafter, rely on partition deed bearing Document No.3205/2009. Since the plaint is founded on the partition deeds of 1915 and 2009, i.e. alleged lawful title, learned AAG contended that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action to seek relief on the basis of adverse possession.

7. The next contention of learned AAG was that the suit is barred under Section 15 of the TN Public Premises Act. By referring to the judgments of the Hon''ble Su