A suit for possession must include a declaration of title when there is a dispute over ownership; mere possession cannot support recovery claims.

JUDGEMENT :

P. DHANABAL, J.

This Second Appeal has been preferred as against the decree and judgment passed in A.S. No.42 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram dated 29.07.2010. The appellant herein is the Plaintiff in the main Suit. The Suit was filed in O.S. No.42 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur for the reliefs of delivery of vacant possession of the Suit property and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants 2 and 3 to cancel the patta in respect of the Suit property issued in favour of the 1^st defendant and to retain or transfer the patta in the name of the Plaintiff and the said Suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the Plaintiff had preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court and said appeal was also dismissed by confirming the decree and judgment of the trial Court and therefore, the present Second Appeal has been preferred by the Plaintiff.

1.1. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their status / ranking in the Trial Court.

2. The short facts of the Plaint averments are as follows:-

The Plaintiff is the Trust represented by its President and the Plaintiff Trust was created through a Trust Deed dated 21.10.1959 and one C.N. Varadappan had given lands to the Trust to an extent of 22.76 acres comprised in Kundrathur Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk and the same was accepted by the Plaintiff, whereby the Trust has been in possession and enjoyment of the Suit property. The land situated in S. No.712 situated in Kundrathur Village to an extent of 2.37 acres is also covered under the said Trust Deed. The same is set out in the Plaint schedule. Except the Plaintiff, no others have got any manner of right, title or interest over the Suit property. Patta was also granted in favour of the Plaintiff Trust. While so, in the month of April 1995, the Plaintiff came to know that the said C.N. Varadappan had sold the Suit property to one R. Velayudham and another. Thereafter, the 1^st defendant had purchased the said property through a Sale Deed dated 27.06.1986. The said C.N. Varadappan had no manner of right or title or interest to sell the Suit property, thereby, the sale in respect of the Suit property is not valid and will not confer any title to the 1^st defendant. Now, the 1^st defendant is trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property and also got patta to that property through the 3^rd defendant. The Plaintiff came to know about the same in the month of April 1995 and thereafter, the Plaintiff issued a notice to the defendants on 23.04.1995. After receipt of notice, the 1^st defendant issued a reply notice on 23.06.1995 with false averments. The said C.N. Varadappa Mudaliar sold the property through an unregistered Sale Deed dated 06.01.1994 in favour of C. Raju Mudaliar and also registered the Sale Deed in his favour. Therefore, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit for the reliefs of delivery of vacant possession and mandatory injunction and for other reliefs.

3. The brief facts of the Written statement filed by the 1st defendant are as follows:-

The defendant denied all the allegations made in the Plaint except those that are specifically admitted herein. The defendants denied the validity of the Trust Deed alleged to have been executed by C.N. Varadappan Mudaliar dated 21.10.1959. The