S.Prema v. L.Logammal And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2022 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. SESHASAYEE C.S. No.677 of 2010 S. Prema, Wife of G. Sambasivam, No. 92, Ellaiamman Koil Street, Kottur, Chennai - 600 085.

... Plaintiff -Vs1. L. Logammal, Wife of Late. P.R. Lakshmanan, Old No. 11/1, New Door No.20, West Canal Bank Road, Kottur, Chennai - 600 085.

2. L. Chandrakumar, Son of Late. P.R. Lakshmanan, Old No.11/1, New Door No.20, West Canal Bank Road, Kottur, Chennai - 600 085.

... Defendants Civil Suit praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a decree and judgment in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. i) Directing the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the A and B Schedule property to the plaintiff and to put the plaintiff in possession thereof.

ii) To restrain the defendants, their men, agents, servants or any one claiming under them by a decree of permanent injunction from in any way putting up any further construction over the Schedule mentioned property ("A" Schedule property in the plaint) pending disposal of the suit; iii) To grant the costs of the suit.

This Civil suit along with the C.S.No. 852 of 2009 having been heard on 25.11.2021 in the presence of Mr.P.L.Narayanan, Advocate for the plaintiff herein and Mr.K.Harishankar, Advocate for the 1st defendant herein and Mr.G.RM.Palaniappan, Advocate for the 2nd defendant herein and upon reading the plaint filed herein and the other exhibits therein referred to and upon perusing the evidence adduced therein and having stood over for consideration till this date and coming on this day before this Court for orders in the presence of said advocates for the parties hereto and this Court having observed that after all, the defendants in that suit have claimed right to occupy only as a permissive owner, in other words, they are mere licencees and they occupy the property only at the wish of the licensor, and the first defendant had successfully filed in O.S.No. 2104 of 2007 earlier for bare injunction that her possession shall not be disturbed except by due process of law, it is ordered :-

That the defendants herein, be and are hereby directed to deliver vacant possession of the suit property morefully set out in the Schedule - B hereunder, to the plaintiff herein, within 30 days from this day.

2. That (1) L. Logammal and (2) L. Chandrakumar the defendants herein, their men, agents, servants or any one claiming under them, be and are hereby restrained by an order of permanent injunction from in any way putting up any further construction over the suit property morefully setout in the Schedule-A hereunder.

Schedule "A" Property All that piece and parcel of the vacant site of the property bearing Old No.11/1, New Door No.20, West Canal Bank Road, Kottur, Chennai - 600 085 comprised in Survey No.79/6 (Old Survey No.79/1) T.S.No. 178 part, Block No.16, measuring 2 Grounds and 1310 square feet (6110 square feet) situate at Kottur Village, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk, Chennai District, within the limits of Chennai Corporation. Bounded on the North by :

House with door No.14/2A South by :

House with door No. 14/2A East by :

West Canal Bank Road West by :

Land and apartments

Schedule "B" Property In A Schedule mentioned above, a tiled house having an extent of 500 sq.ft., with electrical and water amenities.

WITNESS THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT AT MADRAS AFORESAID, THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2022. Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (O.S. I) //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2022. COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

ED 14.02.2022 C.S.No. 677 of 2010 DECREE DATED: 31.01.2022 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. SESHASAYEE FOR APPROVAL : 15.02.2022 APPROVED ON : 18.02.2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Judgment Reserved on : 25.11.2021 Judgment Pronounced on : 31.01.2022 CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE C.S.No.677 of 2010 and C.S.No.852 of 2009 1.S.Prema .... Plaintiff in C.S.No.677 of 2010 2.Ramachandran .... 1st Plaintiff in C.S.No.852 of 2009 3.Mageswari .... 2nd Plaintiff in C.S.No.852 of 2009 4.Kalidass .... 3rd Plaintiff in C.S.No.852 of 2009 5.Murugan .... 4th Plaintiff in C.S.No.852 of 2009 6.Yasugy .... 5th Plaintiff in C.S.No.852 of 2009 7.Amuthavalli .... 6th Plaintiff in C.S.No.852 of 2009 8.Jayalatchumy .... 7th Plaintiff in C.S.No.852 of 2009 9.Kalaivani .... 8th Plaintiff in C.S.No.852 of 2009 10.Thanam .... 9th Plaintiff in C.S.No.852 of 2009 [Plaintiffs 1 to 9 in C.S.No.852 of 2009 are represented by PoA, 9th Plaintiff in C.S.No.852 of 2009] Vs 1.L.Logammal .... 1st defendant in C.S.No.677 of 2010 2.L.Chandrakumar ....

2nd defendant in C.S.No.677 of 2010 3.Beeman .... 1st defendant in C.S.No.852 of 2009 4.Chandrasekaran .... 2nd defendant in C.S.No.852 of 2009 5.Dr.Jawahar Nesan .... 3rd defendant in C.S.No.852 of 2009 6.S.Prema .... 4th defendant in C.S.No.852 of 2009 Prayer in C.S.No.677 of 2010 : Civil Suit filed under Section Order IV Rule 1 of O.S.Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of CPC.

(a) to direct the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the 'A' and 'B' schedule property to the plaintiff and to put the plaintiff in possession thereof.

(b)to restrain the defendants, their men, agents, servants or any one claiming under them by a decree of permanent injunction from in any way putting up any further construction over the schedule mentioned property ('A' schedule property in the plaint) pending disposal of the suit;

(c) to grant costs of the suit;

(d)to grant such other relief or reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstance of the case and pass further suitable orders.

Prayer in C.S.No.852 of 2009 : Civil Suit filed under Section Order IV Rule 1 of O.S.Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of CPC., praying for a judgment and decree against the defendants : (a) for declaration, declaring the plaintiffs are the real owners of the suit schedule property.

(b)for declaration declaring the power of attorney dated 24.05.2006 executed by the first defendant to and in favour of the second and third defendants which had been adjudicated by the Sub Registrar, Adyar, Chennai-20, on 02.06.2006 as null and void, non-est in law and the same is not binding on the plaintiffs. (c) For declaration, declaring the sale deed dated 05.01.2007 executed by the second and third defendants to and in favour of the fourth defendant which was registered as Document No.30/2007 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Adyar, as null and void, non-est in law and the same is not binding on the plaintiffs.

(d)For a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, legal representatives, heirs, assigns and/or any one claiming under or through them from in any way encumbering/alienating the suit property.

(e) To pay the cost of this suit (f) to pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. In C.S.No.677 of 2010 For Plaintiff : Mr.PL.Narayanan For Defendants : Mr.K.Harishankar for D1 Mr.G.RM.Palaniappan for D2 In C.S.No.852 of 2009 For Plaintiff : Mr.G.RM.Palaniappan For Defendants : D1 & D2 set exparte Mr.PL.Narayanan for D3 & D4 COMMON JUDGMENT There are two suits, their causes of action show that except the property involved therein, they are different. C.S.No.852 of 2009 is laid for declaration of title over the suit property, whereas C.S.No.657 of 2010 is a suit for recovery of possession by the 4th defendant in the first mentioned suit (purchaser of the property) against certain third parties who are in physical occupation of the same.

THE FACTS:

The undisputed facts:

2.1 The property in question is comprised in S.No.79/6 (Old S.No.79/1) in Kottur Village, Chennai District, measuring 2 grounds and 1310 sq.ft. (6110 sq.ft.) with a building therein. On 23.11.1979, a certain Beeman, the first defendant had purchased this property for a total consideration of Rs.20,400/-. On 24.05.2006, the first defendant Beeman had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Chandrasekaran and Dr.Jawahar Nesan, defendants 2 and 3 in the suit. On the strength of this Power of Attorney, on 05.01.2007, defendants 2 and 3 had sold the property to the 4th defendant for a total consideration of Rs.50.0 lakhs.

2.2 In one portion of the said property, a certain Logammal and her son Chandrakumar are residing. They are stated to be the relative of the first defendant in C.S.852 of 2009. They are also the defendants in C.S.677 of 2010.

Pleadings:

3.1 C.S.No.852 of 2009 is laid by the children of Beeman. They allege : ●On 23.11.1979, the property was purchased in the name of Beeman. For the purchase of the suit property, the first plaintiff, the elder son of Beeman had advanced Rs.19,000/- through two pay orders, both of which are dated 16.11.1979. This was done

because the plaintiffs were then living in Malaysia and hence, the property was purchased in the name of their father. At that relevant point of time, only the first plaintiff cared the other plaintiffs as they were all minors then.

●On 14.03.2009, it came to light that the first defendant had executed a Power of Attorney dated 24.5.2006 in favour of the defendants 2 and 3, and that on the strength of the said Power of Attorney, on 05.01.2007, the defendants 2 and 3 had sold the property to one Prema, the fourth defendant.

●Indeed, Beeman, the first defendant, was misled and defrauded into executing the Power of Attorney to the defendants 2 and 3. In the property, the defendants in C.S.677 of 2010 (Logammal & Chandrasekar) are residing. On the pretext of evicting them, defendants 2 and 3 had obtained the original title deed of the suit property from the first defendant.

●Beeman had no authority to execute the Power of Attorney as he had no title over the property. Consequently the sale deed that the defendants 2 and 3 had executed in favour of the fourth defendant on of the Power of Attorney is null and void, and non-est in the eye of law.

●On 02.06.2009, the suit notice was issued by the plaintiffs, besides

which the first defendant on his part had issued another suit notice dated 03.6.2009 to the defendants 2 to 4. To them only the fourth defendant, the purchaser of the property, responded with her reply dated 19.06.2009. She raised untenable contentions. It is in the backdrop of the cause of action which the above narrated facts provided, the plaintiffs have come forward with the present suit to declare their title over the property and for a declaration that the Power of Attorney which the first defendant, Beeman had executed in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 are not binding.

3.2 The first and the second defendants did not file their written statements and remained exparte. The third defendant has filed his written statement, in which he alleged :

●All the plaintiffs are from Malaysia. This defendant is a renowned Professor and has been associated with top Universities in Malaysia including the University of Technology, Malaysia, and has also served as an Advisor to the Government of Malaysia. ●The second defendant is a close relative of the first defendant. In September, 2006, this defendant came to know about the first defendant through the second defendant. The first defendant

would then request this defendant to arrange the sale of the suit property. He represented that it was his self-acquired property. This was corroborated by Chandrasekaran, the second defendant. ●Following this, the first defendant had executed the Power of Attorney at Malaysia in favour of the defendants 2 and 3, attested by a Notary Public and counter signed by an official of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malaysia and the Secretary (Consuar), High Commission of India, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

●Thereafter, the second defendant came to India, held negotiations with the fourth defendant for sale of the property. The fourth defendant had agreed to buy the property for a sum of Rs.50.0 lakhs. It was also agreed that Rs.10.0 lakhs would be withheld by the second defendant for payment of capital gains, if so required payable by the first defendant, and the balance Rs.40.0 lakhs was to be paid to the first defendant, Beeman.

●Indeed, when the sale was concluded on 05.01.2007 in favour of the fourth defendant, the second defendant was present in the Office of the Sub-Registrar along with this defendant, and that the second defendant's identity was also disclosed in the sale deed itself.

●All the plaintiffs as well as the first and the second defendants are

living in Malaysia. Indeed, some of the plaintiffs as well as the first defendant Beeman are living together in the same apartment. The plaintiffs have control over their father Beeman, and they have collusively filed the suit.

●While so, to his surprise, this defendant received the suit notice and upon receipt of which he contacted the second defendant, and the latter had then promised that he would talk to the first defendant and would settle the issue. But that did not happen. ● There is no bonafide on the part of the plaintiffs to institute the suit.

3.3 The fourth defendant in his, rather lengthy and over-wound written statement has alleged that :

●The sale in favour of the fourth defendant is valid and that she had taken possession of the property.

●In the suit property, a certain Logammal was residing in a small portion, and contended that she is in permissive occupation of the suit property under Bheeman, the first defendant, that these occupants had laid O.S.No.2104 of 2007 before the VIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, for bare injunction against this defendant. That suit came to be dismissed and in its judgement

the Court had held that Logammal was not in possession of the property, and also recorded in its finding that there is no dispute between the parties and that the first defendant was initially the owner of the property.

●The fourth defendant has also laid RCOP.No.1591/2008 before the Rent Controller, for eviction of Logammal and his son from the property.

●The allegation is that only on 14.3.2009, the plaintiffs came to know of the execution of the power of attorney by the first defendant in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 as well as the sale of the property to the fourth defendant is utterly false. The suit property belonged to the first defendant and the sale deed executed is valid.

Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

Pleadings in C.S.No.677 of 2010 :

4.1 This suit is laid by the fourth defendant in C.S.No.852 of 2009 against the two individuals viz., Logammal and her son Chandrakumar, to evict them from the portion of the property that they are in occupation. The suit property of C.S.No.852 of 2009 is described in this plaint as 'A' schedule property, and a portion which the defendants Logammal and his son have

occupied is described as 'B' schedule property. 4.2 In her plaint, the plaintiff alleges that : ●She has purchased the suit property vide sale deed executed in her favour on 05.01.2007 by Beeman (first defendant in C.S.No.852 of 2009 through his Power of Attorneys).

●The defendants are the permissive occupants under the aforesaid Beeman.

●Indeed with regard to the suit property, the second defendantChandrakumar, son of the first defendant-Logammal had instituted O.S.No.4525 of 2006 against Beeman and later on coming to know of the purchase of the suit property, he impleaded Prema, the plaintiff, and that came to be dismissed on 21.10.2008. ●Subsequently, the first defendant Logammal had instituted O.S.No.2104/2007 for a bare injunction against the defendants therein (Sambasivam, husband of Prema and one Vardhan) not to disturb her possession. That suit came to be decreed since the Court had found that the defendants are in settled physical permissive possession.

●In the meantime, this plaintiff has instituted O.S.No.4486/2008 against the defendants for a bare injunction that her possession in

the suit property should not be disturbed. This was subsequently withdrawn.

●The plaintiff has filed RCOP.No.1591 of 2008 for evicting the defendants and that came to be dismissed on the ground that there was no jural relationship between the landlord and tenant, the plaintiff and the defendants herein. Subsequently, this was challenged in RCA.No.373 of 2009 and it was dismissed for default.

●Inasmuch as the defendants themselves are in permissive possession, on 01.10.2009, the plaintiff issued a suit notice requiring them to deliver vacant possession of the suit property. Hence the suit.

5. The defendants have filed separate written statements. The only significant defense taken is that the suit is hit by Order II Rule 2 CPC., Indeed, they would contend that in addition to the present suit, there are other legal proceedings (the details of which are already stated). The plaintiff had also laid C.S.No.994 of 2009 before this Court and that came to be transferred to the City Civil Court as O.S.No.4486 of 2008 and that too was withdrawn. Indeed, seeking the present relief is always available to them. They would also allege that the suit is hit by Order II Rule 2

CPC., that the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

6. On these pleadings, following issues are framed : C.S.No.852 of 2009 C.S.No.677 of 2010

1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the real owners of the suit schedulle property?

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get recovery of possession of the suit schedule property from the defendants?

2) Whether the suit schedule property in C.S.No.852 of 2009 is the self-acquuired property of the 1st

2) Whether the suit is hit by Order II Rule 2 of CPC?

3) Whether there is jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendants?

defendant?

3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration declaring the power of attorney dated 24.05.2006 executed by the first defendant to and in favour of second and third defendants as null and void?

4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from any way by putting up any further construction over the scheduled 'A' mentioned property in the plaint?

4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a declaration declaring the sale deed dated 05.01.2007 executed by the second and third defendants in favour of the fourth defendant registered as Document No.30 of 2007 as null and void?

5) As to what relief the plaintiff is entitled to?

5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any way encumbering or alienating the suit schedule property?

6) Whether the suit is hit by

C.S.No.852 of 2009 C.S.No.677 of 2010 Order III Rule 2 CPC in view of the Power of Attorney dated 03.3.2009 is admissible in evidence?

7.1 As outlined earlier, both the suits went for joint trial and evidence was recorded in C.S.No.852 of 2009. For the plaintiffs, the 9th plaintiff was examined as P.W.1, through who, Ext.P1 to Ext.P9 came to be marked. Of them, Ext.P8 is the sale deed dated 23.11.1979 executed in favour of the first defendant by his vendor pertaining to the suit property. Exts.P1 & P2 are the bank advices dated 16.11.1979, to prove that the first plaintiff had advanced Rs.19,000/- to the first defendant for the purchase of the property under Ext.P8. Ext.P3 is the Power of Attorney dated 24.05.2006, that the first defendant had executed in favour of the defendants 2 and 3, and Ext.P7 is the sale deed dated 05.01.2007, which the defendants 1 and 2 have executed in favour of the fourth defendant, based on Ext.P3, PoA. The second defendant in C.S.No.

677 of 2010 was examined as P.W.2. 7.2 Defending the suit in C.S.No.852 of 2009, the fourth defendant's husband alone has entered the box to prove the title of his wife, the fourth defendant. He was examined as D.W.2, and had produced Exts.D1 to D13. Part of the evidence that D.W.1 tendered is against the defendants in C.S.677 of 2010. D.W.

C.S.No.677 of 2010. This defendant has produced D14 to D24. Arguments:

8.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs in C.S.No.822 of 2009 argued that to prove the case of the plaintiffs, 9th defendant was examined as P.W.1. Indeed, she has denied the signature of her father, the first defendant (Beeman) in the alleged Power of Attorney and that the plaintiffs have not taken any efforts to prove the same. When the Power of Attorney fails, the sale deed executed by the Power of Attorney in favour of the fourth defendant-Prema (plaintiff in the connected suit in C.S.No.677 of 2010) also fails.

9. The counsel for the fourth defendant in C.S.No.852 of 2009 who also wears the cap of the counsel of the plaintiff in the connected suit in C.S.No.677 of 2010 submitted that the foundational fact for providing the cause of action for C.S.No.822 of 2009 is that the entire funds for the purchase of the property had proceeded from the first plaintiff in C.S.No.822 of 2009 and to prove the same P.W.1 has produced Ext.P1 and Ext.P2, both are bank orders for Rs.9,500/- each. P.W.1. also admits that she was barely 13 to 14 years at the time when the suit property was purchased by Beeman vide Ext.P8, and she literally pleads ignorance to the

core allegation of first plaintiff providing funds. Indeed, she was silent in her entire deposition about this fact except introducing Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 in evidence. Even if she has spoken anything, it would only amount to hearsay since the best evidence regarding the same would only come from the first plaintiff. She also added that since the purchase of the property, the fourth defendant had mutated the property in her name. She also laid a suit in O.S.No.4486 of 2008 for bare injunction against the defendants in C.S.No.677 of 2010, and that came to be dismissed as withdrawn. Couple of days after the withdrawal of that suit, the first defendant in C.S.677 of 2010 was successful in obtaining a decree in her suit in O.S.No.2104 of 2007 whose judgement and decree are marked as Ext.D18 & Ext.

D19, wherein the learned XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai had held that the plaintiff before that Court (the first defedant in this suit) is in settled physical possession of the property as a permissive occupant under Beeman, the first defendant in C.S.No.852 of 2009. It is true that Prema had laid RCOP.No.1591 of 2008, which she had lost since the Rent Controller found that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. These are the broad circumstances under which the plaintiff was constrained to withdraw all the legal proceedings that she had initiated, and to file a separate suit for recovery of property. Since the defendants have not raised any sustainable defence in law, that suit may have to be decreed.

Discussion and Decision All the Issues in C.S.852 of 2010:

10.1 There is considerable merit in the argument of the counsel for the fourth defendant in C.S.No.852 of 2009 (the plaintiff in the connected C.S.677 of 2010). When the first plaintiff in C.S.No.852 of 2009 contends that the first defendant had not contributed the funds for the purchase of the suit property under Ext.P8, and that he had advanced the sum, the said fact has to be proved only by the first plaintiff in C.S.No.852 of 2009. Secondly, here P.W.1 admits in her evidence that she was barely 13 or 14 years and she had conceded to her ginorance about the facts on the basis of which the suit is laid. This apart there is utter silence as to what happened to the sale consideration which the fourth defendant had paid the power of attorney of the first defendant. The plaintiffs who challenge the Power of Attorney executed by the first defendant and the sale did not whisper anything about it. When the core fact are not proved, the suit travels towards its dismissal.

All the issues in C.S.677 of 2010 11.1 Turning to the second part, inasmuch as the defendants case was that

the fourth defendant had succeeded in C.S.No.852 of 2009, it necessarily should follow that the second suit in C.S.No.677 of 2010 that she has laid has to be decided in her favour. After all, the defendants in that suit have claimed right to occupy only as a permissive owner. In other words, they are mere licencees and they occupy the property only at the wish of the licencor.

11.2 As to the plea of the defendants that the present suit is hit by Order II Rule 2 CPC is concerned, the said plea is misconceived since the plaintiff has withdrawn the earlier suit to file a comprehensive suit for recovery of possession. It is appropriate more so in the context of the fact that the first defendant in C.S.No.677 of 2010 had successfully filed O.S.No.2104 of 2007 earlier for bare injunction that her possession shall not be disturbed except by due process of law vide Ext.D18.

12. Conclusion :

A) C.S.No.852 of 2009 is dismissed with costs. B) C.S.No.677 of 2010 is decreed and the defendants are directed to delivery vacant possession of the 'B' schedule property to the plaintiff within 30 days from today.

APPENDIX I. Witnesses :

Plaintiffs :

P.W.1 Thanam (9th Plaintiff in C.S.No.852 of 2009) P.W.2 L.Chandrakumar (2nd defendant in C.S.No.677 of 2010 Defendants :

D.W.1 G.Sambasivam (husband of Mrs.Prema, the plaintiff in C.S.No.677 of 2010, who is the 4th defendant in C.S.No.852 of D.W.2 M.Manjula (daughter & PoA of Logammal, 1st defendant in C.S.No.677 of 2010) II. Exhibits :

Ext.P1 16.11.1979 Bank Advice No.15/058/111 of United Asian Bank Berhad, Malaysia for Rs.9,500/- issued in favour of Mr.Beeman, 1st defendant in C.S.No.852 of 2009 Ext.P2 16.11.1979 Bank Advice No.15/058/112 of United Asian Bank Berhad, Malaysia for Rs.9,500/- issued in favour of Mr.Beeman, 1st defendant in C.S.No.852 of 2009 Ext.P3 24.05.2006 Copy of Power of Attorney executed by Beeman, the 1st defendant in C.S.No.852 of 2009 in favour of Mr.Chandrasekaran and Dr.Jawahar Nesan, the 2nd & 3rd defendants in C.S.No.852 of 2009 Ext.P4 02.6.2009 Xerox copy of legal notice issued by the plaintiffs in C.S.No.852 of 2009 to the defendants 1 to 4 Ext.P5 19.06.2009 Xerox copy of reply notice sent to the plaintiffs counsel in C.S.No.852 of 2009 (in reference to their notice dated 02.6.2009 ) by the defendants Ext.

P6 Postal acknowledgement cards & returned covers of the legal notice Ext.P7 05.01.2007 Xerox copy of sale deed executed by Mr.Beeman through his Power of Agents Mr.Chandrasekaran and Dr.Jawahar Nesan, the 2nd & 3rd defendants in C.S.No.852 of 2009, in favour of Mrs.Prema, 4th defendant in C.S.No.

Ext.P8 23.11.1979 Xerox copy of sale deed executed in favour of Mr.Beeman by his vendor Ext.P9 30.3.2009 Xerox copy of Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiffs 1 to 8 in C.S.No.852 of 2009 in favour of Mrs.Thanam, 9th plaintiff in C.S.No.852 of 2009 Defendants :

Ext.D1 05.01.2007 Xerox copy of sale deed executed by Mr.Beeman through his Power of Agents Mr.Chandrasekaran and Dr.Jawahar Nesan, the 2nd & 3rd defendants in C.S.No.852 of 2009, in favour of Mrs.Prema, 4th defendant in C.S.No.852 of 2009 Ext.D2 15.12.2008 Xerox copy of judgment in O.S.No.4486 of 2008 Ext.D3 21.10.2008 Xerox copy of the decree in O.S.No.4525 of 2006 Ext.D4 28.02.2007 Certificate of name transfer of property to Mrs.Prema issued by Corporation of Chennai Ext.D5 12.03.2007 Xerox copy of patta (extract from Town Survey Land Register) Ext.D6 02.06.2009 Xerox copy of legal notice issued by the plaintiffs in C.S.No.852 of 2009 to the defendants 1 to 4 Ext.D7 03.6.2009 Xerox copy of legal notice issued to the defendants 2 to 4 by Mr.Beeman, 1st defendant in C.S.No.852 of 2009 Ext.D8 21.07.2010 Photographs Ext.D9 04.06.

2019 Declaration of Mrs.Prema authorizing her husband Mr.G.Sambasivam to give evidence and to submit documents on her behalf Ext.D10 05.01.2007 Xerox copy of sale deed executed by Mr.Beeman through his Power of Agents Mr.Chandrasekaran and Dr.Jawahar Nesan, the 2nd & 3rd defendants in C.S.No.852 of 2009, in favour of Mrs.Prema, 4th defendant in C.S.No.852 of 2009, Ext.D11 15.12.2008 Certified copy of judgment in O.S.No.4486 of 2008 Ext.D12 21.12.2008 Certified copy of judgment in O.S.No.4525 of 2008 Ext.D13 12.03.2007 Certified copy of patta (extract from Town Survey Land Register) Ext.D14 06.03.2020 Original Special Power of Attorney executed by Mrs.Logammal, 1st defendant in C.S.No.677 of 2010 in favour of her daughter Mrs.M.Manjula (D.W.2) Ext.D15 01.08.2000 Certified copy of death certificate of Mr.K.Lakshmanan Ext.

D16 Certified copy of Voter ID of Mrs.

Ext.D17 26.02.2007 Original Police complaint lodged by Mrs.Logammal against one Siva & Varadhan before Kotturpuram Police Station Ext.D18 18.12.2008 Copy of the judgment in O.S.No.2104 of 2007 Ext.D19 18.12.2008 Copy of the decree in O.S.No.2104 of 2007 Ext.D20 09.07.2013 Copy of the judgment in RCA.No.373 of 2009 Ext.D21 09.07.2013 Copy of the decree in RCA.No.373 of 2009 Ext.D22 Copy of the Family Card of Mrs.Manjula Mohan Ext.D23 02.10.2013 Copy of the Aadhaar Card of Mrs.Logammal Ext.D24 Copy of Identity Card issued for receiving Government aids.

Sd./-N.S.S.J., 31.01.2022 //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2022. COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.