1

IN THE COURT OF THE SUB-ORDINATE JUDGE AT THIRUVOTTIYUR

O.S.No. 25 OF 2022

( Ponneri O.S 243/2017)

Mr. R.Selvaraj,

Son of S.G. Raghupathi,

No.16, Vimalapuram 2nd Street, Manali Village,

Chennai-600 068. - Plaintiff

Vs

1) K. Bhuvaneswari

2) R. Sahadevan ( Died) (Impleaded as per I.A. 2/2022 allowed on

6.3.2023 Amended as per I.A. 4/2023 allowed on 24.3.2023 )

3) S.Saraswathy

4) S.RameshRaj

5) S.Padmavathy

6)S.Rajeshraj all are residing at No.147, Neducheziyan Salai, No.1,

Thillaipuram 1st Street, Manali, Chennai-68, (Impleaded as per I.A.

2/2022 allowed on 6.3.2023 Amended as per I.A. 4/2023 allowed on

24.3.2023 ) - Defendants

PLAINT FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 1 OF CPC

PLAINTIFF : Mr. R. Selvaraj Son of S.G. Raghupathi, Hindu, aged about

61 years, residing at No.16, Vimalapuram 2 nd street, Manali Village,

Chennai – 68 within the jurisdiction of This Hon’ble court .

The address for service of all notices and process on the plaintiff

is that of his counsels M/s. N. Nagasundaram.,M.A.,M.L., and T.Kumar.,

 2

M.A.,M.L., Advocates having office at No.16, Thiyagarajan Street, T.S.R.

Nagar, Thiruvottriyur, Chennai – 600 019.

DEFENDANTS :

The first defendant is K. Bhuvaneswari Wife of Krishnamurthy, Hindu,

aged about 45 years, residing at No.32, New Valaimanagar krishnadoss

Road, Chennai – 12. Within the jurisdiction of the MSC court Limits.

The Second defendant is R. Sahadevan ( died) (Impleaded as per I.A.

2/2022 allowed on 6.3.2023 Amended as per I.A. 4/2023 allowed on

24.3.2023 ) Son of Ramasamy, Hindu, aged about 62 years, residing at

No.21, Thiruvenkadam Street, manali Village, Chennai – 68 within the

jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court Limits.

3rd defendant is S.Saraswathy w/o Sahadevan aged 68 years The 4 th

defendant is S.RameshRaj S/o Sahadevan aged 44 years The 5 th

defendant is S.PadmavathyD/o Sahadevan aged 42 years The 6 th

defendant S.Rajeshraj s/o Sahadevan aged 40 years all are residing

at No.147,Neduncheziyan Salai No.1,Thillaipuram 1 st street

Manali ,Chennai 86. (Impleaded as per I.A. 2/2022 allowed on 6.3.2023

Amended as per I.A. 4/2023 allowed on 24.3.2023 )

The address for service of all notices and summons on the defendants

is same as stated above.

3. The plaintiff submits that he is the owner of the property at Plot

No.18 and 19 bearing S.No.34/1A 2, 34/1B1, 34/1B2 admeasuring an

extent of 2500 + 2280 + 806(Passage) in all to the total extent 5586

 3

sq.ft situated at Chinnamathur Village, “Arulanantham Nagar” mathur

Panchayat, Chennai – 68 which is more fully described in the schedule

hereunder as “A” schedule property, and herein called as the suit

property. The plaintiff had purchased the suit property from one Mr.

Sahadevan, the second defendant herein through a registered sale deed

bearing document No.1401/2000 dated 27.03.2000 on the file of SRO at

Thiruvottriyur. The plaintiff traces his title from the Registered

document bearing No.35/Bk 1/1993, Doc.No.3605/1996 both registered

before the SRO Thiruvottriyur. Ever since from the date of purchase of

the suit property, the plaintiff had fenced the same with iron mesh and

till date he is in possession and enjoyment of the same after paying the

all necessary taxes and charges.

4. The plaintiff further states that he has obtained patta in his name

from the office of the Thasildar, madhavaram, vide Registration No.452

and 1719. The first defendant tried to get patta in her favour to the

suit property. The Thasildhar Madavaram issued summon to plaintiff on

29.09.2014 regarding patta name transfer. The Plaintiff given reply for

the same. The Proceedings are pending before the RDO Ambattur. In

the meantime, the first defendant trespassed the part of the “A”

Schedule property and put up a unlawful construction over the same,

which extent is morefully described as “B” Schedule hereunder.

5. The plaintiff further states that on 20.04.2016, he noticed the

first defendant who is the alleged to be owner of the western side of

plaintiff’s property, the first defendant putting up Hollow Block room in

Plaintiff’s property and the construction work was went on. While so, the

first defendant put up a 15 x 10 =150 sq.ft Hollow Block room in the

 4

plaintiff’s property and put up the partly construction without roof.

Immediately when the plaintiff questioned the first defendant she

threatened him with dire consequences and stated that it is her property.

While so, the first defendant in order to encroach upon the plaintiff’s

property had put up in the western side of the plaintiff’s property to an

extent of 150 sq.ft under the instigation of the second defendant. And

Hence, the first and second defendant collusively interfere with peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the suit “A” property.

6. The plaintiff further states that on 27.04.2016, he lodged a

complaint with the Madhavaram Police Station stating the above said

facts and requested the first defendant to stop the construction.

Thereafter the Inspector of police instructed the first defendant not to

put up the construction. They stated that the above said case is civil

nature and instructed both parties to approach the civil court. The

plaintiff tried for mediation for amicable settlement. But the first

defendant adamantly not cooperates with the plaintiff. The plaintiff is

an absolute owner of the property. The first defendant is no way

connected with the suit property. The first defendant construction upon

the part of the plaintiff property which is shown as “B” schedule is purely

illegal and such encroachment is to be cleaned by the order of this

Hon’ble court. And such an construction is unauthorized despite plaintiff’s

protest, the first defendant has not come forward to demolish the

unauthorized room put upon the plaintiff’s property (B Schedule

property). Therefore, plaintiff is entitling for the relief of declaration

and for recovery of possession by the order of this Hon’ble court against

the first defendant directing her to demolish the unauthorized Hollow

 5

Block Room in the plaintiff’s western side property and also for a

permanent injunction not to inter with peaceful possession and enjoyment

of the suit “C” schedule property. The plaintiff is physically and mentally

affected by the illegal activities of the first defendant. Hence the

present suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of declaration and for

recovery of possession. The plaintiff has not filed similar suit in any

other court.

7. The cause of action for the suit arose at Plot No.18 and 19 bearing

S.No.34/1a2, 34/1b1,34/1b2 an extent of 2500 + 2280 + 806(Passage) =

5586 sq.ft chinnamathur Village, Mathur Panchayat, Chennai – 68.

Madhavaram Firka and Taluk, within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court

on 27.03.2000 when the plaintiff purchased the suit item and on

20.04.2016 and 26.04.2016 the defendants trespassed into the plaintiff’s

property and constructed the Hollow Block room on the western side of

the suit property and on 27.04.2016 when the police complaint was lodged

by the plaintiff as against the first defendant are all within the

jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court.

8. The plaintiff values the suit for the relief of declaration and

recovery of possession as follows

a) for the relief of declaration of the “B” Schedule property plaintiff

values the suit under section 25(a) of the T.N. C.F. And Suit Valuation

Act.

b) for the relief of injunction which is incapable of valuation is valued

under section 27(c) of the T.N.C.F. and S.V. act.

9. Plaintiff therefore prays before this Hon’ble court to pass decree

and judgement
 6

a) for a relief of declaration that plaintiff is the owner, title holder

for the “B” schedule property and recovery of possession of the suit “B”

Schedule property thereby directing the first defendant, her agent and

whoever claiming under her to quit and deliver vacant possession of the

suit “B” schedule property to the plaintiff.

b) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants their legal

heirs, servants, men or agents or anyone claiming under them from

interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit “C”

schedule property of the plaintiff.

C) Directing the defendants to pay the cost of the suit and Pass such

other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper

under the circumstances of the above case and thus render justice.

Dated at Thiruvottiyur on this day of 2023.

Counsel for plaintiff Plaintiff

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

A-Schedule

(As per Plaint sketch ABCD)

ALL THAT PIECE AND PARCEL OF vacant plot bearing No.18 and 19

comprised in S.No.34/1A2, 34/1B1, 34/1B2 to an extent of 2500 + 2280 +

806(inclusive of Passage) = 5586 sq.ft at Chinnamathur Village,

“Arulanantham Nagar” mathur Panchayat, Chennai – 68, Madhavaram Firka

and Taluk as per patta no.452 and 1719

Bounded on the

North by – Homeguard Property,

South by - Housing Board Main Road,

 7

East by – Elumalai, Williams, Teacher property,

West by – Krishnamurthy Property and vacant site,

Admeasuring East to west on the Northern side 58 feet, Southern

side 56 feet,

North to south on the Eastern side 98 feet, and western side 98 feet

in all 5586 sq.ft bearing plot No.18 and 19. This property comes within

the Sub Registration district of Thiruvottiryur and Registration district

of North Chennai.

This property comes within the corporation of Chennai zonal office

no.2 limits.

B-Schedule

(As per Plaint Sketch - EFCG)

ALL THAT PIECE AND PARCEL OF vacant plot bearing Plot

No.19(Western part) comprised in S.No.34/1A2, 34/1B1, 34/1B2 to an

extent of 1262 sq.ft out of 2500 sq.ft at Chinnamathur Village,

“Arulanantham Nagar” mathur Panchayat, Chennai – 68, Madhavaram Firka

and Taluk as per patta no.452 and 1719 being bounded on the

North by – Property belong to plaintiff., (i.e., plot NO.18)

South by – Housing Board Main Road,

East by – Property belong to plaintiff (eastern part of the Plot No.19)

West by – Vacant site.

Admeasuring East to west on the Northern side 29-1/2 feet,

Southern side 20 feet, North to south on the Eastern side 49’9” feet,

and western side 52’3” feet in all 1262 sq.ft bearing part of the plot

No.19 which is morefully described in the rough sketch filed along with
 8

this plaint. This property comes within the sub registration district of

Thiruvottiryur and Registration district of North Chennai.

This property coming within the limit of Corporation of Chennai Zonal

Office No.2.

C-Schedule

(As per Plaint Sketch ABFEGDA)

ALL THAT PIECE AND PARCEL OF vacant plot bearing No.18 and

19(PART) comprised in S.No.34/1A2, 34/1B1, 34/1B2 to an extent of

4324 OUT OF 5586 sq.ft at Chinnamathur Village, “Arulanantham Nagar”

mathur Panchayat, Chennai – 68, Madhavaram Firka and Taluk as per patta

no.452 and 1719

Bounded on the

North by – Home guard Property,

South by - Housing Board Main Road,

East by – remaining property of the plaintiff,

West by –“B” schedule property,

Admeasuring 4324 sq.ft out of 5586 sq.ft as per the plaint sketch.

This property comes within the Sub Registration district of

Thiruvottiryur and Registration district of North Chennai.

This property comes within the corporation of Chennai zonal office

no.2 limits.

AdvocateS for plaintiff Plaintiff

 9

Verification

I, R.Selvaraj,S/o S.G.Ragupathi aged 61 years the above named

plaintiff do hereby declare and state that what all stated above are true

and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and I

signed this at Ponneri on November 2017

Plaintiff

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 14(1) OF CPC.

S.NO. DATE DESCRIPTION REMARKS

01. 27.03.2000 Sale deed in favour of Plaintiff Certified Copy

02. Patta(2 in series) computer copy

03. 2007-2016 Property Tax Receipts Original

(5 in series)

04. 2014-2015 Water Tax Origina

05. 27.04.2016 Police complaint CSR copy xerox

06. 25.07.2013 Kist receipt(2 in nos) Original

07. 1422 fasli Adangal Extract True copy

08. FMB Sketch True copy

09. 16.03.2017 Computer EC computer copy

10. 05.07.2017 Guideline value of suit property computer copy.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 14(2) OF CPC

Nil at Present

Advocate for plaintiff Plaintiff.

 10

MEMO OF VALUATION

RELIEF A: Suit for Declaration of the plaintiff’s right and title

to the “B” Schedule property(EFCG) and for consequential relief of

possession of the suit property under section 25 (a) of the T.N.

C.S.V.Act.

Present Market Value of the suit “B” Schedule property is(1262 Sq.ft)

Rs.8,45,540/-

(1 sq.ft. – Rs.670/- i.e., 1262 Sq.ft = Rs. 8,45,540/-

C.F. paid under section 25(a) of the T.N.C.F.Act is Rs.25,367/-

RELIEF B: Suit for permanent injunction restraining the

defendants, their legal heirs, their men and agents , servants or any one

claiming under him from interfering with the peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the suit “C” Schedule property of the plaintiff.

This relief is Valued under section 27(C) of T.N.C.F Act AT Rs.5000/

C.F. Paid thereon is Rs.30.00 paise.

Advocate for plaintiff Plaintiff.

STATEMENT FILED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 14(A)(1) CPC

PLAINTIFF : Mr. R. Selvaraj Son of S.G. Raghupathi, Hindu, aged about

61 years, residing at No.16, Vimalapuram 2 nd street, Manali Village,

Chennai – 68 within the jurisdiction of This Hon’ble court .

The address for service of all notices and process on the plaintiff

is that of his counsels M/s. N. Nagasundaram.,M.A.,M.L., and T.Kumar.,

M.A.,M.L., Advocates having office at No.16, Thiyagarajan Street, T.S.R.

Nagar, Thiruvottriyur, Chennai – 600 019.

 11

DEFENDANTS :

The first defendant is K. Bhuvaneswari Wife of Krishnamurthy, Hindu,

aged about 45 years, residing at No.32, New Valaimanagar krishnadoss

Road, Chennai – 12. Within the jurisdiction of the MSC court Limits.

The Second defendant is R. Sahadevan ( died) (Impleaded as per I.A.

2/2022 allowed on 6.3.2023 Amended as per I.A. 4/2023 allowed on

24.3.2023 ) Son of Ramasamy, Hindu, aged about 62 years, residing at

No.21, Thiruvenkadam Street, manali Village, Chennai – 68 within the

jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court Limits.

3rd defendant is S.Saraswathy w/o Sahadevan aged 68 years The 4 th

defendant is S.RameshRaj S/o Sahadevan aged 44 years The 5 th

defendant is S.PadmavathyD/o Sahadevan aged 42 years The 6 th

defendant S.Rajeshraj s/o Sahadevan aged 40 years all are residing

at No.147,Neduncheziyan Salai No.1,Thillaipuram 1 st street

Manali ,Chennai 86. (Impleaded as per I.A. 2/2022 allowed on 6.3.2023

Amended as per I.A. 4/2023 allowed on 24.3.2023 )

The address for service of all notices and summons on the defendants

is same as stated above.

VERIFICATION

I, R. Selvaraj, the above named plaintiff do hereby declare and

state that what all stated above are true and correct to the best of my

knowledge, information and belief and I signed this at Thiruvottiyur on

2023..
12

Plaintiff

IN THE COURT OF THE SUB-

ORDINATE JUDGE AT

THIRUVOTTIYUR

O.S.No. 25 OF 2022

( Ponneri O.S 243/2017)

Mr. R.Selvaraj, - Plaintiff

Vs

1) K. Bhuvaneswari

And 5 others Defendants

AMENDED PLAINT

M/s N.NAGASUNDARAM

K.N.NARENSHARATH

Counsels for Plaintiff