Ownership claims require substantial evidence; mere possession does not confer title, especially against established public ownership.

JUDGMENT :

This Civil Suit has been filed by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule mentioned property.

2. The case of the Plaintiff, as set out, in the plaint is as follows:-

(i) The plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property, which was acquired by the Plaintiff's predecessors in title much earlier to the year 1951, as seen from the Deed of Partition dated 04.03.1951 and thereafter, the property had changed hands under the following documents, viz., Sale deed dated 15.06.1962, registered as document No.2018 of 1962, Sale deed dated 15.06.1962, registered as document No.2019 of 1962; and Sale deed dated 19.08.1962, registered as document No.3887 of 1962 and finally the plaintiff had become the owner of the same by virtue of an order passed in T.O.S. No. 20 of 2009 by this Court.

(ii) The plaintiff had leased out the area facing Pulla Avenue from time to time and as on date, the same is in possession of the tenant Mrs.P.Jansi, who has been running a Honda Service Centre from the year 2013 onwards. The entire property is being assessed to tax and the plaintiff has been paying the property taxes as well. The tenant has constructed and provided all the necessary infrastructure required for running the service centre. A ramp and service equipment has also been constructed in the portion of the land falling S.No.2/6 and facing Pulla Reddy Avenue, with a compound wall and gate. While so, on 18.07.2017, the Assistant Engineer, Executive Engineer and Zonal officer of Zone VIII, Ward 102, Corporation of Chennai, visited the property and claimed that a portion of the property abutting Pulla Avenue belongs to Corporation of Chennai and closed the gates of the Service Centre by sending out all the employees of the tenant.

(iii)The plaintiff claims that no notice of any kind was ever given to the plaintiff or to his tenant in this regard. No proof of any kind relating to the alleged ownership of Corporation of Chennai was also shown or provided to the plaintiff, despite specific requests and demands made by him. They did not even allow the tenant to remove all their belongings and threatened to take severe action if they are not allowed to lock the gates immediately. The plaintiff was not even allowed to get any legal help in order to ascertain his rights under law. While it is settled law that even an encroacher cannot be thrown out without giving proper notice and opportunity to show cause as to why action should not be taken against them, in the instant case where a lawful owner who has been in possession of the property with a compound wall and a gate for nearly 60 years, has been forcibly sent out in no time by taking law into their hands.

(iv)The officers attached to the office of the defendant also attempted to park Garbage trucks and later after closing the gate with a tin sheet and putting up a board, they have also unloaded unused electric poles and materials hindering the entrance and a warning has also been given that they would resume demolition activities. The action is high handed and illegal. It is not open to Corporation officials to take law into their hands and indulge in unlawful eviction exercises without following the legal processes. Though the plaintiff met all the officers concerned and requested for providing time and also to give copies of the document under which Corporation is claiming the right, but they have not chosen to give any such basic documents. On the contrary, the plaintiff is in possession of all the documents including the property tax assessment records carried out by the same Corporation officials showing it as proof of ownership. The assessment order showing the property address at Pulla Reddy Avenue, Shenoy Nagar, issued by the Corporation of Chennai.

v)Earlier when such an attempt was made by the Corporation to prevent the plaintiff's predecessor in title to enter into the property, he had filed a suit in O.S.No.9481 of 1994, on the file of XVI