IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON

19.08.2025 27.10.2025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU C.S.No.206 of 2019 Sumathi Sampath ... Plaintiff Vs Anand ... Defendant Prayer : Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Madras High Court Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of CPC to pass decree and Judgment against the defendant as hereunder:-

a) directing the defendant to vacate and handover possession to the plaintiff, the flat situated at ground floor of No.36/2, Pachiyappas college hostel road, Chetpet, Chennai –

600 034.

b) grant an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendant his men, servants, agents from encumbering the suit schedule property in any manner.

c) directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) per month towards rent of the flat-suit schedule property into the credit of the suit, from the date of plaint till the disposal of suit, d) to pay the plaintiff the cost of the suit;

e) to any other relief that the plaintiff is entitled to which may deem fit and proper.

For Plaintiff : Mr.Siddarth for M/s.BFS Legal For Defendants : Mr.A.Praveen

JUDGMENT

The instant suit has been filed seeking a direction to vacate the defendant and hand over possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff, together with a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from encumbering the suit schedule property in any manner, and further directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month as rent for the use and occupation of the suit property.

2) It is the case of the plaintiff that she and the defendant are spouses, married on 21.06.1991, and have a daughter, Apoorva. The plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property under Sale Deed dated 01.06.2001, registered as Document No.983 of 2001, from one Mr. M. Lakhmanan. The suit property is the self-acquired property of the plaintiff/wife. While employed at Bangalore, the plaintiff permitted the defendant, their daughter, and her mother to reside in the premises. The defendant, however, misused the same and attempted to usurp the property by unlawful means. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit seeking recovery of possession along with mesne profits in the form of rent.

3) It is the case of the defendant that the suit property was purchased from his funds and belongs to him. He contends that the plaintiff has produced no documents to substantiate her case or prove the transaction. He further alleges that the plaintiff is reckless, maintained an immoral relationship, and was once found at a hotel in Calcutta. According to the defendant, he, along with his daughter and mother-in-law, has been residing in the premises since the plaintiff wilfully separated from the family to pursue her work at Bangalore. He asserts that he intended to settle the property in favour of his daughter, retaining a life interest for himself, but in order to cause hardship, the plaintiff has instituted the present suit, though she has no entitlement to the property.

Accordingly, the defendant prays for dismissal of the suit.

4) Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed to consider the case on hand.

a)Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit?

b)Whether the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and entitled to recovery of possession as per Law?

c)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for?

d)Whether the defendant has paid the entire cost towards purchase of the suit schedule property?

e)To what other relief, the parties are entitled?

5) On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has been examined as PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and on the side of the defendant, the defendant has been examined as DW1.

6) Heard Mr.Siddarth, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and Mr.A.Praveen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant.

7) The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff a