Judgment

The present Civil Suit has been filed by the plaintiff for declaration, to declare that the plaintiff is the owner of the property measuring an extent of 5233 sq.ft.comprised in S.No.110 and 110 Part as per bearing No.699, T.S.No.122 as per New Patta, Nesappakkam village, together with a building measuring an extent of 1000 sq.ft. bearing D.No.7C, Erikarai Street, Nesapakkam, Chennai and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the aforementioned property.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule mentioned property, which is a Grama Natham land, was in possession of one Rathinapandian who had conveyed the same in favour of his father, M.Singamuthu vide an unregistered sale agreement dated 10.03.1997. Later, the father of the plaintiff obtained patta and he had been in possession enjoyment right from 1997. In the year 2000, he settled the property in favour of the mother of the plaintiff, namely, S.Sundarambal, who in turn settled the same in favour of the plaintiff vide Settlement Deed 30.06.2015 registered as Document No.4573/2015 after cancelling the settlement deed already executed by her in favour of others. Thereafter, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. He also got the patta and assessed the property to property tax and mutated electricity connection in his name. While so, the defendants herein are attempting to encroach upon the suit schedule property claiming that it was belonging to them and thereby interfering with the peaceful and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property. Hence the suit.

3. Despite notices served on the defendants and their names printed in the cause list, they had neither appeared in person nor through a counsel on their behalf. Hence, vide order of this Court, dated 29.01.2021, the defendants were set ex parte.

4. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff filed proof affidavit and he is examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P20. Ex.P1, dated 01.02.1992, is the Notice issued by Village Administrative Officer; Ex.P2, dated 01.12.1994, is the Tax Payment receipt; Ex.P3 dated 1.10.1995 is the E.B.Receipt in respect of suit property; Ex.P4 dated 10.03.1997 is the unregistered Agreement of Sale; Ex.P5 dated 04.10.1997 is the E.B.Receipt; Ex.P6 dated 04.10.1997 E.B.Transfer in favour of Singamuthu; Ex.P7 dated 21.01.1997 is the E.B.Receipt in favour of Singamuthu; Ex.P8 is the Patta issued in favour of Singamuthu; Ex.P9 dated 27.01.2000 is the Settlement deed executed by Singamuthu in favour of Sundarammal; Ex.P10 dated 18.05.2007 is the Possession Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, Ex.P11 dated 11.01.2013 is Settlement deed executed by Sundarammal in favour of Singamuthu & others; Ex.P12 dated 30.06.2015 is the Cancellation deed executed by Sundarammal cancelling the Settlement deed; Ex.P13 dated

30.06.2015 is the Settlement deed executed by Sundarammal in favour of the plaintiff; Ex.P14 dated 30.06.2016 is the Patta issued in favour of the plaintiff; Ex.P15 dated 06.04.2019 is the property tax receipt in favour of the plaintiff; Ex.P16 dated 17.07.2019 is the Tax Receipt issued by the Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board; Ex.P17 is the EB Account summary in favour of the plaintiff; Ex.P18 dated 20.09.2019 is the Encumbrance Certificate; Ex.P19 dated 18.11.2019 is the Complaint lodged with the police by the plaintiff against the defendants and Ex.P20 dated 18.11.2019 is the C.S.R. Receipt.

6. A perusal of the evidence of PW.1 coupled with the exhibits would reveal that the plaintiff is the owner and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff has proved his case. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Suit is decreed as prayed for with costs.

Suk 15.06.2021 Witnesses examined on behalf of the Pl