Madras High Court

Chennai XII Assistant City Civil Court: Mylapore Flat Owners Clash Over Shared Spaces

Updated
Mar 9, 2026 3:29 PM
chennai-xii-assistant-city-civil-court-mylapore-flat-owners-clash-over-shared-spaces

Summary: A legal battle over property rights in Chennai's Mylapore has ended with the court dismissing a request against a counterclaim. The dispute involves who owns the property and shared area rights between two flat owners.

The Case Begins: A Property Tussle

On January 3, 2026, a property dispute between Nishanth Chandrasekar and G. Kannan reached the XII Assistant City Civil Court in Chennai. Nishanth, represented by his agent V. Chandrasekaran, wanted to stop G. Kannan from interfering with his property on D’Silva Road, Mylapore. Nishanth asked the court to prevent G. Kannan from damaging security systems and insisted on fixing damaged property structures.

The Property Purchase: Who Owns What?

Nishanth bought Flat No.4 in Plot No.8-A, D’Silva Road, from Lalitha Krishnan on November 29, 2024. The sale was registered in Mylapore. However, G. Kannan, the owner of Flat No.3, claimed that Nishanth's purchase included shared areas that were not legally sold to him. G. Kannan argued that Nishanth was using shared spaces without permission, which led to the lawsuit.

Kannan’s Counterclaim: Challenging the Sale

G. Kannan filed a counterclaim, asking the court to declare Nishanth’s purchase agreement invalid. He wanted the removal of encroachments and CCTV cameras, saying they invaded his privacy. G. Kannan also wanted illegal constructions removed, arguing they were not part of the approved plans.

Court’s Decision: Evidence Required

Judge S. Sounthar, on February 20, 2026, ruled that the issues brought up needed proof and couldn't be dismissed without it. The judge found no mistake in the trial court's decision to dismiss Nishanth’s request to reject G. Kannan’s counterclaim. The court emphasized that the disagreement over shared areas and property rights needed a thorough investigation.

Summary of Verdict

The court dismissed Nishanth’s request, stating that the evidence would be crucial in making the final decision. The case highlights the complexities of property ownership and shared area rights in urban settings like Chennai.

"The controversy in the pleadings between the parties has to be decided only based on the evidence to be recorded at the time of final disposal," noted Justice S. Sounthar.

Tags:
Property Rights
Land Dispute
Evidence