JUDGMENT

P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.-The appellants herein filed two suits praying for a decree of permanent injunction against the respondent-village Panchayat so as to restrain the members and officials of Panchayat and its assignees from interfering with plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the land. The extent of land covered by the two suits is 1 acre 38 guntas. The main issue framed and contested in the suit was whether the plaintiffs proved that they were in lawful possession of the suit land. The learned III Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore granted injunction against the defendant while making it clear that injunction does not operate against the persons in occupation of the houses and huts. The respondent-Panchayat filed appeals against the said judgment and decree. By the impugned judgment dated 24.8.1989, the learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the appeals holding that the suit schedule land forming part of Gramathana area (village site) vested with the Government under the provisions of Mysore Inams Abolition Act of 1954 in the year 1959 and thereafter vested in the village Panchayat by virtue of a Notification issued by the then Government of Mysore on 27.12.1961 under Sections 46 & 49 of the Mysore Village Panchayats & Local Bodies Act, 1959. It was, therefore, held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that their possession was lawful. However, the High Court declared that the plaintiffs shall be entitled to own and retain the buildings that were put up by them prior to the vesting of the Inam village in the State. The Panchayat was called upon to make an inquiry as to the date of construction of the buildings before dispossessing the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by this judgment of the High Court, the present appeals by special leave are filed.

2. The plaintiffs traced their title to the registered sale deeds executed in the years 1927 and 1928 in favour of their ancestors, and the subsequent partition among the heirs. Two of the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 538 of 1980 built up houses on a part of the land. The remaining land was being used by the plaintiffs in both the suits for purposes connected with agriculture. Sometime after Inam was abolished, the village was surveyed and the land in question which falls on the other side of the high-way was identified as Gramathana land for the first time. At the instance of the respondent-Panchayat, the Government sought to acquire an extent of 2 acres 28 guntas in the Gramathana land for providing house sites to the villagers. However, the acquisition proceedings were dropped. According to the Panchayat, the letter seeking acquisition was addressed to the Government under a mistaken impression that the land did not vest in the Panchayat. Later on, i.e., on 9.3.1973, pursuant to the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the Tahsildar was directed to deliver possession of 2 acres 18 guntas including the land in question for the purpose of allotment to landless poor persons Attempts were made to dispossess the plaintiffs on 11.8.1973 by the members and workmen of the Panchayat as well as the Revenue Inspector and local people. The suit was filed at that stage.

3. The fact that the plaintiffs have been in possession of the suit schedule land since long time has been found in favour of the plaintiffs by the Trial Court as well as the High Court and that fact is not in dispute. Moreover, the fact that the land was originally proposed for acquisition on the footing that it was a private land and that the plaintiffs did not apply for nor were granted occupancy rights under the provisions of Inams Abolition Act is also not in dispute.

4. The High Court, while expressing doubt as regards the exact location of the land covered by the sale deeds of 1927 and 1928 observed that no proprietory rights can be claimed in respect of the land kept apart for the use of the villagers unless the grant is made by the Government. The High Court further held that the requisition sent by the