JUDGEMENT

Suit is for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and

2, their men, agents, servants or any other person or persons claiming for, through or under them or on behalf of them from disturbing the plaintiff in the peaceful use, enjoyment and possession of the suit schedule properties; restraining defendants 1 and 2, their men, agents servants or any other person or persons claiming for, through or under them or on behalf of them from causing any disturbance to the construction activity which is being carried out by the plaintiff by employing his men and servants in the suit schedule properties; and also for costs.

2. The plaintiff claims to be absolute owner of the suit schedule items by virtue of purchase from one K.Anbazhagan on 18.11.2019 and 18.12.2019 respectively. He was put in possession of the suit items on the date of execution of the sale deeds. According to the plaintiff, the defendants have prevented him from carrying out the construction activities in the suit properties and therefore, he made a complaint to the police on 19.01.2020 as against the defendants. On 20.01.2020 also, the defendant attempted to prevent the plaintiff from carrying out construction activities. On 27.01.2020, the plaintiff and his son were prevented from entering into the suit schedule properties. On 28.01.2020, the defendants entered into a wordy quarrel with the son of the plaintiff and prevented the construction activities. Hence, the suit.

3. The defendants 1 and 2 have filed their written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and inter alia contending that did not have any semblance of right over the property in Old S.Nos.93/3 & 935/5 belonging to them.

4. Based on the pleadings the following issues were framed for trial:

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get an order of permanent injunction as against the defendants 1 and

2 from disturbing the plaintiff in the peaceful use, enjoyment and possession of the suit schedule properties which are situated in Chennai District, Thiruvanmiyur village, Kannappa Nagar Extension, comprised in Town Survey Field Numbers 158 & 157 and bearing Plot Numbers 33 and 25 measuring an extent of 2520 square feet and 2438 square feet respectively?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get an order of permanent injunction as against the defendants from causing any disturbance to the construction activity which is being carried out by the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties which are situated in Chennai District, Thiruvanmiyur Village, Kannappa Nagar Extension, comprised in Town Survey Field Numbers 158 & 157 bearing Plot Numbers 33 and 25 measuring extent of 2520 square and 2438 square feet respectively?

(3) Whether the plaintiff is in actual possession of the suit schedule properties?

(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of cost of the suit?

(5) What other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to?

5. On 08.04.2022, P.W.1 (plaintiff) filed his proof affidavit in chief examination and examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to 14 and for marking of plaintiff's side further documents and for cross examination of the plaintiff the suit was adjourned to 21.04.2022. Thereafter, the case was adjourned on several dates at request of the 1st defendant's counsel. On 19.10.2022 plaintiff marked Exs.P.16 to P.24, however, at request of the defendants' counsel, the case was adjourned to 08.12.2022 for the cross examination of P.W.1. On 08.12.2022 also, at request of the learned counsel for the defendants, the case was adjourned to 12.12.2022 as last chance. On 20.12.2022 also there was no progress and at request of the learned counsel for the defendants, the case was adjourned to 10.01.2023. However, it is seen from the records that on 10.01.2023, the learned counsel for the defendants has reported to the court that he had no instructions. Therefore, the Additional Master-III had directed the suit to be posted before this court. It is seen from the endorsement made