A claimant must provide sufficient evidence of possession to support property claims, particularly when contested by documented ownership rights of another party.

JUDGMENT :

T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.

Challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below, the plaintiff preferred this Second Appeal.

2.Before the trial court, the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to cause interference or not to make any encumbrance in respect of suit property at ground floor No.1179, Ambethkar Nagar, West Velacherry, Chennai-600 042 and other consequential relief against his mother and his sister/defendants 1 and 2.

3.For the sake of convenience, the parties are denoted as per the ranking in the Suit.

4.According to the plaintiff, the suit property as per the scheme of Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, the land was allotted in the name of his mother/1^st defendant. Thereafter, he along with his parents were living in that premises and in the year 2011, his father was died. Thereafter, he took care of his mother as well as unmarried sister and also by availing loan from private persons and other authorities, he put up construction, wherein all were living jointly. He is working as a Call Taxi driver and got married in the year 2018 and begotten one female child. Thereafter, some misunderstanding arose between the plaintiff and his unmarried sister/2^nd defendant. Therefore, there was an arrangement made. Accordingly, the unmarried sister/2^nd defendant decided to live in the first floor and his mother/1^st defendant, plaintiff along with his wife were residing in the ground floor. But the 2^nd defendant used to cause interference, due to which, his wife was almost stayed in her parents house. So, the ground floor was happened to be locked, at that time, without his knowledge, his mother and sister broke open the lock and took some of his articles. However, there was a Koorchit executed by his mother, in which, the first floor was allotted to 2^nd defendant and the ground floor was allotted to plaintiff and his mother. But, contrary to the terms of Koorchit, the defendants joined together and causing interference and also used to disturb his possession in the ground floor. Hence, he gave a complaint to the police. Accrodingly, he came forward with the suit for permanent injunction.

5. The suit was contested by both defendants by filing written statement and admitted the relationship but the other allegations were denied. The 1^st defendant contended that she was a senior citizen and her unmarried daughter looked after her. She had also contended that the house described in the second schedule was allotted to her by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearnace Board presently known as Tamil Nadu Urban Habitant Development Board on 11.01.1995 on a lease-cum-sale agreement with conditions, for which the amount was also to be paid in instalments for a period of two years. Now, the entire intalments was also paid by them. But, so far the sale deed was not executed in her favour. Without which, the 1^st defendant obtained electricity connection, water and sewerage connection with the help of Central Government’s Prathan Mantri Awas Yojna Scheme and she was given a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- in that scheme. Since she is a domestic woman and her hard-earned money was invested in constructing ground floor. Her unmarried daughter was residing with her and doing tailoring job. She had also helped her to put up construction of the house at the ground floor. She would also submits that her son/plaintiff is residing comfortably with his father-in-law’s house and he never resided along with her. She along with 2^nd defendant residing in the ground floor and there was a small room in the first floor, wherein the 2^nd defendant doing