Unilateral cancellation of a sale deed is invalid; plaintiffs established title and possession over property despite defendants' claims based on forged documents.

JUDGMENT

The suit has been filed for declaration of title; declare the Sale Deed dated 05.07.2017 as invalid, illegal and non-est in the eyes of law and not binding on the Plaintiffs; declare the Sale Deed dated 16.08.2018 in favour of the 10^th defendant as invalid, illegal and non-est in the eyes of law and same would not bind on the Plaintiffs; to grant a permanent injunction, restraining the Defendants, their men, agents, representatives or any person acting under them or claiming through them from in any manner alienating or encumbering the Suit Property; To grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants 7 to 12, their men, agents, representatives or any other person acting under them or claiming through them from in any manner alienating or encumbering the suit Schedule Property and for costs.

2. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as follows:

The plaintiff R.Subramanian was the absolute owner of the vacant land and was in possession of the suit property, bearing Plot No.A-89, 12^th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Madras-600 083, comprised in S.Nos.278 and 221 (part), T.S.No.21, Block No.71, Kodambakkam Village, measuring an extent of 3 grounds 2181 sq.ft.(9,381 sq.ft). According to the plaintiff, the said property was purchased from one S.Gopalakrishnan, Son of R.Srinivasa Iyer in and by Sale Deed dated 10.12.1981, registered as Document No.6461 of 1981 on the file of S.R.O., Kodambakam. The vendor of the plaintiff viz., S.Goapalakrishnan was allotted the suit property by way of public auction conducted by the Madras State Housing Board in furtherance of which a sale deed dated 06.10.1969, registered as Document No.3181 of 1969, came to be executed and registered. The plaintiff had obtained patta on 22.12.1986 and was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property by appointing a local care taker and the suit proprety was retained as vacant land.

3. In November 2014, the plaintiff was informed by the neighbouring owners that some strangers have entered into the vacant property and also removed the Board put up by the plaintiff. The plaintiff rushed to the spot to find that the gate and the warning sign board have been removed. As the identity of the trespassers were not known to the plaintiff, no action could be taken. On 18.11.2024, when the plaintiff with his employees were cleaning the property, when Police Patrol arrived and stated that they had received an anonymous call and required the plaintiff to come to the police station. The plaintiff produced all the relevant documents and demonstrated his title to the property and also informed the police about the incident that occurred on 15.11.2024 where unidentified persons had removed the gate and warning board put up by the plaintiff.

4. The very next date i.e., 19.11.2014, about 40 people trespassed into the property and threatened the caretaker, stating that the property belonged to one Anandhi. The plaintiff immediately contacted the police who called upon both the parties to prove their title to the property. On 20.11.2014, the first defendant Anandhi, claiming to be the owner of the suit property, produced a copy of an interim injunction order passed by the City Civil Court, Chennai in her favour in and by which, the plaintiff was restrained from interfering with the said Anandhi's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. Since the plaintiff was not aware of any suit initiated against him and no notice was also served on him, on enquiry, he came to know that O.S.No.6373 of 2014 had been filed before the VIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, where, the plaintiff