J U D G M E N T

Aggrieved over the reversal of the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, by the First Appellate Court, the defendant has preferred the above Second Appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are called as per their litigative status before the Trial Court.

2.According to the plaintiff, she purchased the suit property on 30.04.1998 by virtue of a registered Sale Deed Document No.1069/1998, registered at the Office of the Sub Registrar, Royapuram from her vendors namely one (1) D.Ragavalu (2) D.Ragavendra and (3) D.Ragaraju. The suit schedule property originally belonged to one Pullamma, who purchased the same from one Pappaiah, vide Sale Deed dated 07.12.1950. After the purchase of the suit property, the said Pullamma developed the property and constructed the present house. She died intestate on 19.11.1972 without any issues, leaving behind the above three persons viz., (1) D.Ragavalu (2) D.Ragavendra and (3) D.Ragaraju as her legal heirs, who are none other than her younger sister's sons and also her husbands second wife's sons. From 1950 till the year 1998, the property was under possession and enjoyment of the said Pullamma and her legal heirs. She paid the house tax from 1957 till 1998 to the Corporation of Chennai and property tax also stands in her name since 1950. After purchase from the legal heirs, the Corporation of Chennai transferred the property tax in favour of the plaintiff and she has been paying property tax and water tax. The defendant even before the purchase was tenant in respect of the suit property. She approached the defendant to vacate the premises, but he failed to do so. Hence, she filed an eviction petition in RCOP No.2385/1999 on the file of XVI Small Causes Court, Chennai. Since there was a denial of landlord and tenant relationship, it was dismissed with a direction to approach the appropriate Forum.

3.In the meanwhile, the defendant filed O.S.No.2185 of

1998 and obtained an exparte decree for permanent injunction not to interfere with his peaceful possession. It is relevant to state that O.S.No.2185 of 1998 was filed against the plaintiff's vendor and not against the plaintiff and therefore, the decree is not binding on her. The defendant, without having any legal right squatting the property and as such, he shall be considered as trespasser and liable to be evicted.

4.The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. According to him, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as absolute owner for many decades and prescribed title over the suit property by adverse possession also. The defendant neither a tenant under the plaintiff nor under Pullamma or under the vendors of the plaintiff and never paid rentals to them. The claim of title has already been negatived in RCOP No.2385/1999 and the order has become final and hence, the present Suit is hit by resjudicata. Further, the vendors of the plaintiff are not owners of the suit property and that they are not related to Pullamma or Ramaiah and they have no right to convey the title. The decree passed in O.S.No.2185 of 1998 filed against the vendors of the plaintiff will bind the plaintiff also and the Sale Deed dated 30.04.1998 is hit by lis pendens as the Suit was filed as early as on 30.03.1998 prior to the Sale Deed dated 30.04.1998.

5.Even as per the Sale Deed dated 30.04.1998, the land belongs to the Government and the plaintiff claims to have purchased only the superstructure and therefore, the plaintiff cannot pray for a decree of possession for the site owned by the Government. The defendant is still continuing in possession. Pursuant to the denial of title, the plaintiff amended the prayer from one of declaration of title into delivery of vacant possession.

6.The Trial Court after framing appropriate issues dismissed the Suit holding that the plaintiff has not proved her title. On appeal, the First Appellate Court reversed the finding and decreed the Suit holding that