Plaintiffs must specifically identify encroached property to effectively claim recovery of possession.

JUDGMENT :

This Second Appeal has been preferred as against the Decree and Judgment passed in A.S.No.71 of 2012 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram dated 25.07.2014, wherein the appellant herein has preferred the said appeal as against the Decree and Judgment passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Kancheepuram in O.S.No.12 of 2004 dated 30.09.2010 and before the learned Additional District Munsif, Kancheepuram, the appellant herein, being the plaintiff, filed a suit for the relief of recovery of possession and to remove the huts or construction in the suit plot and the said suit was dismissed.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

The suit properties were allotted to the plaintiff in pursuance to the allotment order dated 03.04.1986 by the society, namely, Mamallan Nagar, Residents Association for the purpose of constructing an office building for its association. The suit properties are part and parcel of Town Survey Numbers 2871 and 2873. Adjacent to the suit property, on the northern side of the adjoining suit plot, the Government poromboke Land is situated in Town Survey no.2872 [old no.106/5]. The defendants are the encroachers of the above said Government poramboke land in Town Survey No.2872. The defendants while constructing their house in the poramboke land, slowly encroached the plaintiff's land situated in Town Survey No.2871 and 2873 and put up huts. While so, the 1^st defendant, one Thirunakukarasu and one S.Kanniammal have filed a suit in O.S.No.787 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction against the plaintiff/Society. The said suit was dismissed on 20.12.1991 and in the said suit the court below upheld that the plaintiffs in the said suit had tress passed in the plaintiff's patta land, without any right and title over the property. The plaintiff herein demanded the defendants to handover the vacant possession, but they have not vacated the premises. Per contra, the defendants, demanded the subject plot to sell them, therefore, the plaintiff filed suit for recovery of possession.

3. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendants are as follows:-

(I) The allegation levelled in the plaint are all denied as false, specifically the purchase of property by the plaintiff's society for construction of office building to the members of the society. The survey numbers are corresponding old survey nos.76 and 106/2, on northern side of the adjacent side of the plot, the Government poramboke land is situated in survey no.2872 and the defendants while encroaching the poramboke land, they slowly started to encroach the plaintiff's land, are all denied as false.

(ii) In the suit in O.S.No.787 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram, all the defendants are not parties to the said suit, the 1st defendant alone was party to that suit and the said judgment and decree is not binding upon the defendants. In fact, the said suit was decreed holding that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.787 of 1986 were entitled to remain in possession of the suit property and the decree was granted against the plaintiffs. In fact, each of the defendants encroached about three cents each in respect of channel poramboke situated in Survey no.2872 and they encroached the same about thirty years ago. They had also put up super structures by raising brick walls, property tax was also assessed by the local board and electricity service connection was also granted to those houses. The defendants are also paying property taxes and to the knowledge of the plaintiff and these defendants have been