The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of possessory rights in partition cases and the requirement to obtain permission under Section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971 before evicting occupants from the property.

1. This Second appeal is focussed by the original defendants 1 and 2 animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 17.04.2008 passed in A.S.No.488 of 2007 by the VI Additional District Judge, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree of the XI Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.2978 of 1999. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

2. Narratively but precisely, broadly but briefly, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus:

(a) The plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) To pass a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of the suit property by metes and bounds and for allotting ½ share over the suit property by appointment of a Commissioner;

(ii) To grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, etc. from disturbing with lawful possession and enjoyment relating to the 'C' schedule property; and

(iii) For costs."

(b) D1 and D2 filed their written statement and the other defendants filed their separate written statement separately.

(c) Whereupon issues were framed by the trial Court.

(d) The plaintiff-Pushparani examined herself as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. The defendants Vijayalakshmi and Doss examined themselves as D.W.1 and D.W.2 along with D.W.3-Mangala Lakshmi.

3. Ultimately the trial Court decreed the suit to the effect that 'A' scheduled property should be divided into two halves and the plaintiff is entitled to one half share and the defendants 3 to 6 are entitled to one other half share and that during final decree proceedings, steps should be taken to divide it by metes and bounds.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and the preliminary decree of the lower Court, D1 and D2 preferred appeal for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate Court, confirming the judgment and preliminary decree of the trial Court.

5. Challenging and impugning the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, this Second Appeal has been focussed by the defendants 1 and 2 on various grounds inter alia to the effect that both the Courts failed to take into account the fact that it was D1 and D2 who raised afresh a structure in the 'C' scheduled portion of the plan, because the structure raised by Muniyagadu, the father of the plaintiff got washed away in flood. Both the Courts did not take into account the rights of D1 and D2 and the right acquired by them over it, whereas, the plaintiff even though happened to be the mother of D1 had no right over the 'C' scheduled property.

6. As such, suggesting the following substantial questions of law, this Second Appeal was filed:

"(a) Whether the Courts below exceeded their jurisdiction by granting relief in a suit for partition relating to property belonging to the state namely the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board?

(b) Whether the Courts below erred by entertaining the suit for partition of suit property which was a mere Spes Succession is i.e., a hope or expectation of succeeding, as next of kin. It is not a title to the suit property as per law?

(c) Whether the Courts below failed to note that the admission of allotment of suit property to the ancestor of the parties by the Tamil Nadu Slum clearance Board would not confer title and vest them with ownership of the suit property?

(d) Whether the Courts below failed to give a specific finding in respect of the nature of the suit property vested with the plaintiff through her father late Munigadu?

(e) Whether the Lower Appellate Court erred in rejecting the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC?."

(extracted as such)

7. Based on that, my learned Predecessor framed the following substantial questions of law:

(a) Whether the Courts below exceeded their jurisdiction by granting relief in a suit for partition relating to property belonging to the state namely the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearanc