Legal heirs of an original allottee are co-owners of the property, and a Sale Deed in favor of one heir does not confer exclusive title over the property.

JUDGMENT :

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated September 18, 2018 passed in A.S.No.311 of 2014 by the learned I Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, whereby the Judgment and Decree dated December 23, 2011 passed in O.S.No.2983 of 2009 by the V Assistant City Civil Court at Chennai, was reversed.

This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated September 18, 2018 passed in A.S.No.311 of 2014 by the 'I Additional City Civil Court Judge, Chennai' ['First Appellate Court' for brevity], whereby the Judgment and Decree dated December 23, 2011 passed in O.S.No.2983 of 2009 by the ‘V Assistant City Civil Court Judge at Chennai' ['Trial Court' for brevity] was reversed.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

Plaintiff's Case

3. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the Suit Property. The plaintiff was working as a Fitter in Simpson Company, Chennai. The Suit Property was allotted to the plaintiff in the year 1989 under the 'Scheme of Subsidized Rate of Construction of House to Labourers and Economically Weaker Section'. Since 1989, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property. The defendant, being one of the brothers of the plaintiff, trespassed into the Suit Property knowing fully aware that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board executed a Sale Deed on March 18, 2008 in favour of the plaintiff. Despite oral request, the defendant refused to vacate the Suit Property. Hence, the plaintiff, after issuing notice to the defendant, filed a Suit against the defendant to vacate the Suit Property.

Defendant's Case

4. The defendant filed written statement denying the allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint. He contended that plaintiff is the brother of the defendant; that their father A.Devaraj was working in Simpson Company and belonged to economically weaker section of the society; that the Suit Property was allotted to his father A.Devaraj in the year 1983 by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board; that his father retired from service on March 31, 1985; that after retirement, the plaintiff's father, plaintiff, defendant and another brother by name D.Mani, who is physically challenged, were residing in the Suit Property; that their father A.Devaraj passed away on March 29, 1987; that thereafter, the plaintiff was paying monthly rents to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board from March 13, 1985 to February 11, 2008; that hence the plaintiff and his brother D.Mani as heirs of A.Devaraj are entitled to reside in the Suit Property; that the plaintiff suppressed the material facts and fraudulently obtained Sale Deed in his favour from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board .

Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the Suit.

Trial Court

5. At trial, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Ex-A.1 to Ex-A.8 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. On the side of the defendant, the defendant was examined and Ex-B.1 to Ex-B.39 were marked.

6. After completion of trial and hearing both sides, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the Suit Property was allotted to A.Devaraj, father of the plaintiff and the defendant; and A.Devaraj was paying rent from March 11, 1983 onwards. After the demise of A.Devaraj, the defendant, as one of the heirs of A.Devaraj is residing in the Suit Property. Defendant is not a trespasser and he is in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property as of right. Accordingly, the Trial Court, dismissed the Suit.

First Appellate Court

7. Feeling aggrieved by the trial Court's Judgment and Decree, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.311 of 2014 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court after hearing both sides and perusing the documents available on record, concluded that the Suit Property was originally allotted to A.Devaraj, father of the plaintiff and the defendant; that subsequently after his demise, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board