The main legal point established in the judgment is that land formed by a sudden change in a river course belongs to the Government, and riparian rights cannot be claimed against the State as the owner of river beds. Accretion by dereliction does not confer ownership to private individuals.

1. The question raised for consideration in this appeal related to the ownership of a piece of land formed as a result of a river changing its course. Since the question raised was found to he of public importance, the Second Appeal was referred for decision by a Division Bench. It is thus the Second Appeal has come up before us for consideration.

2. The facts necessary for deciding the question can be summarised thus: The river Manimalayar, before it assumed its present course, flowed over the plaint schedule property bearing survey No.87/1C in Nedumpram village, 82 cents in extent. It then formed part of the river bed at that point. The plaintiffs' father was holding lands on both sides of the river when it was flowing over the plaint schedule property. Thus on the west, Survey Nos.197/22 to 27 of Thalavady village and on the east Survey Nos. 243/23 & 24 of Nedumpram village were held by the plaintiffs' father.

3. While so, according to the plaintiffs, the river changed its course about 70 years prior to the date of filing the suit and began flowing through the properties in survey Nos.197/22 to 27 held by the plaintiffs father instead of survey No.87/1C of Nedumpram, which thereafter became dry. According to the plaintiffs, immediately thereafter, their father reduced the land so formed into his possession. From such time onwards it was alleged that their predecessors and themselves are in continuous possession and occupation of the plaint schedule property and have thus acquired title by adverse possession over the properties.

4. Meanwhile in 1967 the Government initiated proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and registered two cases against plaintiffs 1 and 2 as L.C. Nos.178 and 177 of 1967 respectively. In the said proceedings under the Act, the plaintiffs were found to be encroachers and were accordingly fined under the Act. The suit was filed to declare the title of the plaintiffs and to set aside the orders passed in the land conservancy proceedings and also for consequential injunction restraining the State from evicting the plaintiffs from the plaint schedule property.

5. In the plaint even though adverse possession was the main ground alleged for claiming title, the plaintiffs have also averred in Para.4 of the plaint that they are entitled to the plaint schedule property in law and equity taking into consideration the fact that as a direct result of the change in the course of the river they have lost large areas of land on the western side of the plaint schedule property.

6. The defendant State while admitting the change in the course of the river contended that it was only 25 years prior to the date of the suit that the river has changed its course and that the plaintiffs are only encroachers and cannot claim adverse possession against the State. They also contended that plaintiffs 1 and 2 have submitted Exts.B5 and B16 petitions before the Tahsildar Thiruvalla requesting to assign the land in their names treating the land as belonging to the Government and as such the present claim made in the suit for title over the property based upon the principles of accretion is totally baseless and unjustifiable in law.

7. The trial court decided the case as if the plaintiffs have claimed title only on the basis of adverse possession. On an appreciation of the evidence before it, the court found that the plea of adverse possession has not been established. Accordingly the suit was dismissed. The decision was confirmed in appeal. In the Second Appeal No.1282 of 1974 this Court also con firmed the finding regarding adverse possession. However this Court found that in para.4 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have averred necessary factual particulars constituting a claim for title based upon the principles of accretion and that the courts below have not considered the said contention. Accordingly this Court remanded the case to the lower appellate court for entering a find