IMPORTANT POINT
Relief of mandatory injunction cannot be granted in suit filed under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act.

R. Karuppiah, J.—The Revision Petitioners who are the plaintiffs in the original suit filed this revision petition against the decree and judgment made in O.S.No.205 of 2002 on the file of Subordinate Court, Poonamallee dated 08.04.2008.

2. For the sake of convenience, the plaintiffs in the original suit referred as revision petitioners and the defendant in the suit referred as respondent hereafter.

3. The revision petitioners have filed original suit under Order 7 Rule 1 CPC and Section (6) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 to pass a decree and judgment directing the respondent to quit and deliver the vacant possession of B-schedule lands (i.e.,) I,H,G,D,F,E portions in the sketch to the revision petitioner and further, to remove the construction put up by the respondent in B-schedule property (i.e.,) shown as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 in the sketch by way of mandatory injunction and for costs.

4. The case of the revision petitioners before the trial court is that the revision petitioners’ father namely N.M.Rajapather entitled to right over the property by way of acquisition on occupation in entire Aschedule property measuring 10,880 sq.ft comprised in Grama Nathamx in Survey No.17/2 and put up a brick and mud tiled house in it and he was in possession till his death upto 1982 and after his death, the revision petitioners continued in possession. In or about 1993, the revision petitioners sold an extent of 1200 sq.ft., to one Shakila Begum and she is in possession. The revision petitioners replacing the old tiled house and put up new construction and occupied in 2628 sq.ft and completed the construction in the year 1997 together with compound walls on three sides. The revision petitioners are in possession of entire remaining 1680 sq.ft within the compound walls and Shakila Begum is in possession of 1200 sq.ft. within the compound wall. The revision petitioners obtained electricity connections. According to the revision petitioners, the respondent is revision petitioners’ paternal uncle who was living at Chennai and thereafter, recently shifted to Villivakkam. The respondent has no right or title or possession over the suit property, but, on 03.06.2002, the respondent without any previous notice or instruction, at about 7.00 a.m., along with 19 men with materials, removed the lock and entered into the suit property and put up thatched shed on the south-west side of the suit land. Since the revision petitioners did not know the residential address of the respondent and only able to get the same on 16.07.2002. The portion constructed by the respondent shown in the plaint plan as 1,2,3,4,5. The respondent had dispossess the revision petitioners without due process of law and hence, the suit.

5. The case of the respondent before the trial court is that the property in S.No.17/2 originally ancestral property of one Munusamy Pandithar and he married Kamalammal and Dhanammal. Due to the said wedlock, Kamalammal begotten a son Rajapather. (Revision Petitioner’s father). Dhanammal got two sons namely Ramachandran and respondent herein and a daughter namely Ponnammal. During the life time of Munusamy Pandithar, he was in possession by constructing brick and mud tiled house in the suit property and he died on 05.01.1968. Munusamy Pandidhar before his demise, executed a Will dated 21.06.1967 bequeathing his self-acquired properties to his sons and daughters and left the ancestral property for common enjoyment. After the demise of Munusamy Pandithar, the revision petitioners’ father Rajapather, the respondent and his brother Ramachandran jointly enjoying the entire property. The respondent’s brother Ramachandran died issueless and Ponnammal got married and settled with her husband. Since the entire A-schedule property is the ancestral property, this respondent has got a share in the suit property as one of the coparcener. The further case of the respondent is that the revision petitioners constructed a house in a portion of A-schedule property after dem