O R D E R

The plaintiff/respondent herein has filed the suit for declaring that a certain settlement deed which his brother, the 1st defendant in the suit had executed in favour of his wife, the 2nd defendant in the suit as null and void.

2.In the suit, the plaintiff/respondent has also taken out an applicatiion in I.A.No.384 of 2017 in O.S.No.121 of 2017 not to interfere with his peaceful possession. The trial Court after hearing both sides, has allowed the same and this was unsuccessfully challenged by the defendants before the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee in C.M.A. No.23 of 2018. Aggreived by the same, the defendants are before this Court.

3.The quintessence of the dispute between the parties runs as follows.

● On 19.06.1986, both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, who as already indicated are brothers, as among themselves have purchased seperate block of properties blocked within certain specific boundaries under separate Sale Deeds. Subsequently, after about 29 years, on 28.05.2015 the 1st defendant executed a settlement deed in favour of the 2nd defendant, wherein he specifies the Sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.

● It is the case of the revision petitioners/defendants that in describing the boundaries in their sale deed, a mistake has crept in and this was subsequently deducted and accordingly, the correct boundaries were given in the settlement deed.

● The plaintiff would state that it is an unilateral statement of the 1st defendant and whatever boundaries he has given in the settlement deed is a self serving statement and it cannot bind the plaintiff's title to the suit properties, based on the sale deed in his favour.

4.This Court heard both sides briefly and also perused the orders of the Court below.

5.Given the scope of the Authority of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court does not find any irregularity, illegality or impropriety in the orders of the Courts below as to warrant an interference.

6.This Court was informed that there are few shop buildings in the suit property which the plaintiff claims as his and regarding which, the plaintiff has now laid a batch of eviction proceedings before the Rent controller.

7.The learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent submitted that the 1st defendant/first petitioner is collecting the rents and this goes against the prima facia case which the Court's below have found in his favour.

8.This equation however may have to be adjusted. Given the fact the Courts below have found a Prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff / respondent herein, it is only appropriate the tenants of the building deposit their rent either to the credit of pending RCOP Nos.64 to 70 of 2016 or in the present suit in O.S.No.121 of 2015.

9.The Rent controller/District Munsif Judge, Poonamallee is required to communicate this order in the entire batch of case pending before him. The tenants shall make the deposit after notice to the learned counsel for the petitioner in the RCOP Nos.64 to 70 of 2016 as well as Mr.D.Chittibabu, the learned counsel for the defendants in the Suit. The plaintiff/respondent is also required to implead all the tenants in the Suit in the meantime.

10.The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The Principal District Munsif, Poonamalle is requried to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.121 of 2017 on or before 31.12.2022.

02.03.2022 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order tsg/dk To

1.The Subordinate Judge Poonamallee.

2.The Principal District Munsif Poonamallee.

N.SESHASAYEE, J., Tsg/dk and CMP No.2635 of 2022

02.03.2022