The appellant has acquired ownership of the property through adverse possession as she has been in open, continuous, and uninterrupted possession for a significant period of time, and the original owners had knowledge of her possession.

Because of the interconnectivity of the matter, the common judgment is rendered.

1. The plaint in O.S.No.2844 of 2004, filed by the appellant herein, contains the following averments:-

1.(a) Land measuring 2419 Sq.ft. with superstructure therein in T.S.No.15(part) Block No.3, in Sembium Village, Purasavalkam-Perambur Taluk, Chennai with other properties were purchased by M. Sethumadhavan from one M. Sadullah Bhasha and others by a registered sale deed. Thereafter the said Sethumadhavan sold the suit land with small superstructure, to the plaintiff. The plaintiff demolished the superstructure and applied to the Corporation/2nd defendant, for planning permission and building license for construction of house. The 2nd defendant also granted planning permission and building license to build ground floor of the proposed building. The plaintiff obtained house building loan from Life Insurance Corporation of India, constructed the house with the ground floor and residing in that house. She got electricity connection and is paying property tax as assessed by the second defendant. Thereafter, she applied for planning permission and building license for construction of the first floor in the house and the second defendant granted the same for additional construction. On the strength of planning permission, she completed the construction of the first floor in the month of May 2000 and is in possession of the land and building by paying property tax and electricity consumption for the said building.

1.(b) To her shock and surprise, the plaintiff received a show cause notice on 111. 2000 from the 2nd defendant as to why the planning permission and building license granted to her should not be revoked. She sent reply to that notice on 211. 2000. But the 2nd respondent by order dated 212. 2000, revoked the planning permission and building lincense under Sec.54(2) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act and under Sec.365(4) of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, which is illegal arbitrary, without lawful authority and colorable exercise of powers.

1.(c) The plaintiff filed W.P.No.2369 of 2001 before the High Court, Madras, against the above order. The said writ was admitted. Subsequently, the defendants 3 and 4 (respondents 3 & 4 in A.S.No.935/2008) filed petition for impleadment to the said writ petition and the same was allowed. The writ petition was finally disposed of with a direction to the plaintiff to establish her title in Civil Court and also directed her and the defendants 3 and 4 to work out their remedy in the Civil Court. Hence, the plaintiff filed this suit seeking for declaration of her title to the suit property and for consequential reliefs.

1.(d) Originally one Muthu was in possession of the suit property. Subsequently, Sadulla Basha purchased the property and he had been in possession and enjoyment of the property. After the sale deed by Sadulla Bhasha and his sons to Sethumadhavan, Sethumadhavan was in possession of the property. There was a small superstructure with a tiled roof. The plaintiff purchased the land with the superstructure from Sethumadhavan on 9. 1984 under a registered sale deed, demolished the superstructure and constructed a pucca building after obtaining necessary planning permission and building licence from Corporation authorities. It is therefore clear that the plaintiff and the vendors had been throughout been in open, uninterrrupted and continuous possession and enjoyment of the schedule land and superstructre.

1.(e) It is further averred in the plaint that the first defendant i.e., the Collecter of Chennai by order dated 18. 1996 cancelled the patta granted by the Tahsildar. The cancellation of patta did not take into account the spate of registered documents and the cancellation was the result of a casual approach and without going into the substance of the matter. Patta is not a document of title but it is only a bill of rent. It is now settled law that the revenue authori