Possession, not ownership, is the basis for relief under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, and the court cannot adjudicate title issues in such proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

P. VELMURUGAN, J.

1. The 1^st plaintiff in the suit, C.S. No. 37 of 2009 has filed the instant original side appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2018 passed by the learned single Judge in the above suit.

2. The appellant/1^st plaintiff along with the 4^th respondent/2^nd plaintiff filed the above suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for possession of the suit property claiming that the ancestors of the 1^st plaintiff had purchased vast extents of lands in Zamin Mambalam and Mylapore Villages in the year 1923 and they had acquired the lands in Paimash Nos.669 and 670 in Zamin Mambalam Village. Since the Corporation of Madras had acquired vast extent of lands in Zamin Mambalam Village for development of road and other infrastructural facilities, certain lands belonging to the ancestors of the 1^st plaintiff were also acquired during the said acquisition. According to the plaintiffs, by G.O.Ms.No.735 dated 28.08.1923, certain lands belonging to the ancestors of the 1^st plaintiff were excluded from the acquisition, more particularly, Survey Nos.39 to 76 in Zamin Mambalam Village (Old Survey No.55/3 and 54) are concerned. It was further claimed that Old Survey No.55/3 was assigned new Survey No.4867 in the year 1956 and subsequently Old Survey No.55/3 was assigned Survey No.7039/2 of Zamin Mambalam Village. The claim of the plaintiffs is that the northern boundary of the land that belonged to the 1^st plaintiff’s ancestors, belonged to the predecessors-in-title of the defendants 1 and 2 herein, one Meenambal. The said Meenambal’s land was originally comprised in Survey No.7039 and later sub-divided and assigned Survey No.7039/1. The defendants 1 and 2 herein appear to have purchased the properties in Survey No.7039/1 in Zamin Mambalam Village of an extent of 2 grounds and odd from the said Meenambal. It is also claimed that an extent of 5460 sq.ft. or thereabouts belonged to the family of the 1^st plaintiff comprised in Survey No.7039/2, which has been enjoyed by the family of the plaintiffs and the defendants had nothing to do with the property.

3. They further pleaded that the 2^nd plaintiff entered into a registered agreement of sale with the 1^st plaintiff and his family members on 27.11.2006 in respect of the properties situate in Survey No.7039/2 and on the date of agreement, the 2^nd plaintiff was put in possession of the property. Since the 1^st plaintiff did not comply with the terms of the agreement dated 27.11.2006, the 2^nd plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance in C.S.No.701 of 2008 and the same ended in a compromise on 12.09.2008. On 26.11.2006, the 2^nd plaintiff had put up a board in the property mentioning about the decree passed in C.S.No.701 of 2008. Thereafter, the 2^nd plaintiff removed bushes and cleaned the property and put up a small shed in October 2008. The 2^nd plaintiff had also borne the salaries of security personnel appointed to guard the property. The 2^nd plaintiff applied for and obtained a landline telephone connection to the shed on 11.11.2008 and also the electricity service connection on 26.11.2008 in his name for the said shed. While so, according to the plaintiffs, on 16.12.2008, the 2^nd defendant visited the property and quarrelled with the security personnel deployed by the 2^nd plaintiff. He also lodged a police complaint before R4- Pondy Bazaar Police Station. It was also claimed that the 2^nd defendant had lodged a police complaint with a wrong description of the property and laid claim for the present suit. It was also contended that the 3^rd defendant, who as a higher police officer in the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police took personal interest in t