The suit property is a portion of the superstructure at Door No.13, Thiruvalluvar Salai, Second Floor, Teynampet, Chennai, measuring 300 sq.ft. The suit property is part and parcel of a 3 storeyed building, constructed on the land comprised in Survey No.3774/3. Originally, the land in Survey No.3774/3 was a vacant site, measuring 545 sq.ft. The land was allotted to the father of the plaintiff, by name Devaraj in the family partition. Mr. Devaraj had three sons and two daughters, who are the plaintiff, the defendant and one Kumar and one Shanthi and Rani. According to the plaintiff, Mr.Devaraj, during his life time had given a letter of authorization under Ex.A5 to the plaintiff to spend his own money to construct the superstructure on the said property. Thus, according to the plaintiff, by spending his own money and out of his own efforts, he constructed the three storeyed building on the said vacant site. In one of the floors, he is residing and the others have been rented out to the tenants. According to the plaintiff, he has been collecting rent from the tenants. While so, on 04.01.2000, Mr.Devaraj issued a notice to the plaintiff, wherein, he contended that the property was not that of the exclusive property of the plaintiff. This gave rise to the cause of action for the plaintiff to file a suit. Therefore, the plaintiff filed an earlier suit in O.S.No.2481 of 2000 against his father Mr.Devaraj and his brothers Mr.Jeganathan (the appellant herein) and one Kumar. That suit was for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants therein from disturbing his right to possess the superstructure. That suit was decreed by the trial court. As against the same, the appellant herein filed an appeal in A.S.No.339 of 2008 and that was dismissed by the lower appellate court. As against the same, Mr.Jeganathan filed a second appeal before this court. But, at that time, it came to light that Mrs.Rani, who was added as a party died, but her legal representatives were not added. Therefore, this Court in the second appeal, which is yet to be admitted, observed that the remedy for the appellant herein is to make an application before the Lower Appellate Court in A.S.No.339 of 2008 to implead the legal representatives of Rani. Thus, the suit in O.S.No.2481 of 2000 has not yet reached finality and the same is pending by way of a second appeal before this Court and also by way of an interlocutory application before the lower appellate court.
