IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS

Reserved on: 05.02.2020

Delivered on: 07.02.2020

Coram:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

Rev.Appln.No.278 of 2018

in

S.A.No.1566 of 2011

1.M.Pratheepa

2.A.Charumathi

... Petitioners/Respondents

vs.

1.The Commissioner,

Corporation of Chennai,

Rippon Buildings,

Chennai-600 003

2.The Assistant Engineer,

Zone X, Division 153,

Corporation of Chennai,

Velachery Main Road,

Velachery,

Chennai-600 042

... Respondents/Appellants

Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC

against the judgement passed by this Court, dated 16.03.2018,

made in S.A.No.1566 of 2011.

SA No.1566 of 2011 : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of

CPC against the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2008 passed by

the learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in

A.S.No.110/2008 allowing the appeal the Appeal, setting aside

the decree and judgment of the IV Assistant City Civil Judge,

Chennai in OS No.3327/2004 dated 21.09.2007.

For Petitioners :: Mr.R.Thiagarajan,Sr.Counsel for

Mr.S.Udayakumar

For Respondents :: Ms.Karthikaa Ashok

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

ORDER

The Review petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit and

respondents in the Second Appeal. The Review Petition has been

filed against the judgement of this Court, dated 16.03.2018,

rendered in S.A.No.1566 of 2011, allowing the appeal filed by

the respondents/Corporation of Chennai, by setting aside the

judgement and decree, dated 13.11.2008, passed by the V

Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in A.S.No.110 of

2008.

2.The facts, which gave rise to the filing of the present

Review Petition, are briefly stated hereunder:

The Review Petitioners, namely, the plaintiffs, have

approached the trial Court seeking for permanent injunction

restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with their

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

According to the plaintiffs, the suit schedule property,

measuring about 2,440 sq.ft., was purchased by them by means of

two sale deeds, as each of the plaintiffs has availed half share

in the said land and the said sale deeds are dated 22.08.1996,

Registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Velachery, as

document Nos.2584 and 2585 of 1996. After the purchase of the

said property, the property has been sub-divided into Survey

No.298/18. While so, the first defendant Corporation started

claiming right over the suit property on the ground that in the

plan maintained by them, the property, which was in possession

of the plaintiffs, was shown as meant for children play area.

Since, attempts were made to disturb the peaceful possession

and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiffs,

the suit came to be filed.

3.The defendants filed the written statement resisting

the claim of the plaintiffs on the ground that Plot No.64-B, ear

marked in the layout 63/67, was not reflected in the records

maintained by the Corporation. According to the defendant

Corporation, the layout comprises of Plot No.64 only and the

adjoining land of Plot No.64 has been ear marked as children

play area. On the short ground, the suit claim was opposed by

the Corporation.

4.The trial Court, which went into the issues and the

materials placed on record, has accepted the case of the

Corporation stating that there was an approved layout in regard

to the suit schedule property, wherein, the land in question was

shown as children play area and therefore, held that the

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

plaintiffs were not entitled to the injunction as prayed for.

As against that, the plaintiffs have approached the lower

appellate Court, viz., Principal City Civil Court, Chennai, by

filing A.S.No.110 of 2008.

5.The lower appellate Court, which dealt with the appeal,

has reversed the findings of the