A plaintiff must seek a declaration of title to recover possession when there is a cloud over ownership, as established in Anathula Sudhakar ruling. Failure to do so results in dismissal of the suit.

JUDGMENT :

C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.

1. The suit had been filed for a direction against the first and second defendants to handover vacant possession of a flat '4-A' measuring about 2000 sq.ft., of super built up area in the fourth floor of the multistored building called “Ved Nivas” at No. 52, Taylor's Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010 to the plaintiff and for the costs of the suit.

2. During the pendency of the suit, a memo had been filed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the relief against the second defendant is not pressed since the second defendant, who was in possession of the aforementioned flat, had vacated.

3. In the plaint, it had been stated that the plaintiff, Arun Kapur, his mother Mrs.Vinay Kumari and his brother Mr.Atul Kapur were the joint owners of the property measuring 11 grounds and 1837 sq.ft., at No. 52, Taylor's Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. They entered into a Joint Venture Agreement to develop the property and to construct a multistored residential complex with M/s. Sukrit Constructions, Chennai. The plaintiff further stated that he and his mother and brother had earlier availed loan from Indian Overseas Bank, Chintadripet Branch, Chennai and the said Bank had a lien over the property towards the amount due. The Bank had agreed that on repayment of the dues, they would release the lien on the undivided share of land as and when flats are sold.

4. The plaintiff further stated that on 01.04.2002 his brother Atul Kapur had executed a Release Deed releasing his undivided share over the property in favour of his mother Mrs. Vinay Kumari and the plaintiff. This Release Deed was registered as Document No. 646 of 2002 on 01.04.2002 in the Office of the Sub Registrar of Assurances, Periamet, Chennai. The plaintiff further stated that one of the flats in the second floor, flat -E was purchased by C.S.V.Raman, who had taken loan from Indian Bank, Royapettah Branch, Chennai, towards the said purchase. That Bank had paid Rs.18,00,000/- to Indian Overseas Bank and the lien was released on the undivided share of land for the flat 2E sold to C.S.V.Raman. The sale deed for the undivided share of land was executed by a Sale Deed registered as Document No. 2149 of 2002 on 11.11.2002 in the Office of the Sub Registrar of Assurances Periamet, Chennai.

5. The plaintiff further stated that on 28.02.2003, his mother Mrs.Vinay Kumari settled her undivided share in the said property in favour of the plaintiff by a Settlement Deed registered as Document No. 447 of 2003 on 28.02.2003 in the Office of the Sub Registrar of Assurances, Periamet, Chennai. The plaintiff thus claimed that he had become the absolute owner of the entire property.

6. Subsequently, his brother Atul Kapur filed C.S.No. 985 of 2004 on the Original Side of this Court to declare the Release Deed executed by him registered as Document No. 646 of 2002 on 01.04.2002 as null and void. The suit was dismissed by Judgment dated 04.03.2016.

7. The plaintiff further stated that C.S.V. Raman, who had purchased the flat No.E in the second floor had however sold the flat No.A on the fourth floor to the first defendant Anand Chabbria by sale deed dated 15.12.2004 registered as Document No. 2899 in the office of the Sub Registrar of Assurances, Periament, Chennai. It had been contended that the defendants were able to get physical possession of the flats owing to fradulent act of Mrs. Sujatha Hariharan, one of the partners of M/s. Sukrit Constructions and