P DURGACHALAM Vs. K VENKATESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge made in C.S.No.360 of 1993, whereby the relief of declaration and recovery of possession was granted, while Tr.C.S.Nos.478 of 1997 and 493 of 1997 were dismissed.

(2.) THE plaintiff in C.S.No.360 of 1993 has filed the suit, stating that the first defendant and the predecessors-in-title of the defendants 2 to 7 had represented to the plaintiff that they were the absolute owners of the land measuring 1 acre and 11 cents comprised in S.No.82/1 at Saligramam, Vadapalani, Madras and entered into an agreement of sale dated 2.9.1962 with the plaintiff that the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the property that one Krishnan claimed that the entire land of 1 acre and 11 cents in S.No.82/1 belonged to the joint family and the defendants had only 1/6th share and he has filed the suit for partition in O.S.No.258 of 1983 that though it was dismissed by the trial court, it was decreed in A.S.No.202 of 1967, which was also confirmed by the High Court that the land allotted to the plaintiff in S.No.82/1 is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff ever since his purchase that the plaintiff has obtained plan sanctioned by the Corporation of Madras to put up his construction on the land that the defendants had not only sold their shares in the entire extent, but also the other shares also and have cheated the plaintiff that the defendants are bound by their sale deed and partition arrangement and they cannot go back that the defendants are attempting to trespass into the land of the plaintiff that the defendants have no right, interest or title to interfere in the absolute right of the plaintiff that the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.173 of 1991 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras for permanent injunction that the plaintiff also filed I.A.No.347 of 1991 for interim injunction that though in the counter, the respondents therein had admitted the facts of the plaintiff's purchase to an extent of 18849 sq.ft. in S.No.82/1, they took up a stand that the sale deed would become null and void in view of the findings in A.S.No.202 of 1967, dated 16.12.1969 that being a party to the said sale deed, they cannot allege that the said deed would be null and void that the said I.A. was dismissed and the appeal thereon was also dismissed that the defendants are neither in actual possession nor in possession as per law and cannot claim to be in possession and hence now the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of his title to the suit property and for consequential relief of injunction.

(3.) THE only question that would arise for consideration in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and consequential permanent injunction as decreed by the learned Single Judge?