The court ruled that permissive possession does not confer title, affirming ownership of plaintiffs over property and their right to recover possession.

JUDGMENT :

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

Aggrieved over the judgment and decree passed by the learned XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S.No.4226 of 2020, dated 28.04.2022, declaring the title of the plaintiff and granting a decree of recovery of possession, the 2^nd defendant in the suit has filed the above Appeal.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3.The plaintiffs are husband and wife. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they have purchased the suit property, which is a vacant land, by virtue of sale deed dated 22.10.2003 from one Dr.Saifinaaz and Mr.Habib Mirza Altaf Hussain. Later, the plaintiffs entered into a construction agreement, dated 07.10.2004, with the 1^st defendant engaged by the owners of the property. The 1^st defendant agreed to construct a flat having super built up area of 1200 sq.ft. in the First Floor. The construction of the flat was completed in the middle of 2005 and possession was handed over to the plaintiffs at the end of 2005. The 2^nd defendant was working as Marketing Manager in the Company run by the 1^st defendant. She had developed a good rapport with the plaintiffs. After the plaintiffs got possession of the flat, the 2^nd defendant requested the plaintiffs in the month of January, 2006, to permit her to occupy the flat, as her mother, who was a chronic cancer patient, was taking treatment at Cancer Institute, Adyar. She also promised to vacate and hand over the flat after completion of the treatment of her mother. The plaintiffs permitted the 2^nd defendant to occupy the premises on sympathetic grounds till September, 2006. When the plaintiffs demanded the possession of the flat at the end of September, 2006, the 2^nd defendant requested them to extend the time till December, 2006, as her mother was still in the hospital. The mother of the 2^nd defendant died on 22.01.2007. However, the 2^nd defendant has not vacated the premises. On the contrary, the 2^nd defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.6305 of 2007 on the file of the XII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, against the 1^st plaintiff and 1^st defendant for permanent injunction restraining them from evicting her without following due process of law. The said suit was dismissed after trial and the Appeal filed by the 2^nd defendant was also dismissed. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the suit property.

4.The 1^st defendant remained ex parte before the trial Court.

5.It is the contention of the 2^nd defendant that she was working as Marketing Manager in the 1^st defendant Company. The plaintiffs approached the Company for booking a flat in one of the project at 4^th Main Road, Gandhi Nagar and advanced a sizeable amount in the year 1999-2000. As the plaintiffs were not satisfied with the project, they expressed their dissatisfaction and wanted to cancel all the transactions with the said Company. The Company, which was represented by the 1^st defendant as Managing Director, also agreed and assured the plaintiffs to return back the amounts given by the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the 1^st defendant had returned the 1^st installment of Rs.15 Lakhs in the month of December, 2006, to the plaintiffs, which was also received by the plaintiffs. Further, it is the contention of the 2^nd defendant that the suit property stands in the name of M.S.Sivakumar in his individual capacity. The flat was also mortgaged with the Canara Bank and the 2^nd defendant stood as guarantor for the loan availed by the 1^st defendant in the year 2002. Besides, the 1^st defendant had also borrowed loan from third parties. The 1^st defendant had also availed loan of Rs