1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 43 of 1958 of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Palghat. The suit which has been dismissed was for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 30,000/- from the defendant, the State of Kerala represented by the Collector of the Palghat District, as compensation for eviction from survey field Nos. 98,117 and 119 of the Kadukkamkunnu amsom in the Palghat District. The court below was of the view that the appellant was entitled to succeed but for its conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation under S.14 of the Madras Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

2. The three survey fields concerned form part of the bed of the Malampuzha river. Both sides of that river in the relevant area belonged in jenm to the Emur Bhagavathi Devaswom; and the appellant, it has been held, was a tenant of that Devaswom in respect of those riparian lands.

3. According to the English common law the ownership of the bed of non-tidal rivers usque ad medium filum aquae vests in the riparian owners. The ambit of this principle, however, has been tailored by the Privy Council to suit the character of Indian rivers and in consonance with justice, reason, equity and good sense. In Maharaja of Pittapuram v. Province of Madras (AIR. 1949 Privy Council 3) the Board said:

"Their Lordships consider that the appellant's contention, that the English Common Law rule that the bed of non-tidal rivers belongs to the riparian proprietors should apply to Madras not only runs counter to the trend of judicial dicta but conflicts with good sense, and that the rule to be applied is that the bed of a navigable river in any part of India, whether tidal or not, is vested in the Government unless it has been granted to private individuals."

4. In State of Madras v. Maharaja of Pithapuram (AIR. 1952 Madras 510) the Madras High Court summed up the law on the subject as follows:

"(1) The bed of a navigable river in any part of India whether tidal or not, is vested in the Government, and not in the zamindar or other private persons owning lands on both sides of the river, unless it has been granted to such private individual. The English common law rule that the bed of non-tidal rivers, even though they are navigable, belongs to the riparian proprietors, does not apply to Madras State.

(2) To create a title to the river bed in the Government the river should be navigable at that part of it where the disputed plots are situated.

(3) A river in India is not navigable in the legal sense unless it is navigable throughout the year, though it need not be navigable for a portion of the day, as at low tide.

(4) Facilities for passage of large river crafts, which may not be capable of rising to the dignity of ships, seem to be generally considered sufficient to call a river affording such facilities a navigable river."

According to the lower court the Malampuzha river is a non-tidal and non-navigable river and in view of that survey field Nos. 98,117 and 119 should be considered as belonging to the Emur Bhagavathi Devaswom in jenm subject to the tenancy right found in favour of the appellant.

5. The survey fields in question have been registered as river porombokes. The lower court has held, and quite correctly, that the registration cannot affect the rights of the real owner. It said:

"The mere registration of these lands as Government poromboke cannot improve matters for the Government for the simple reason that under S.19 of the Malabar Land Registration Act, such registration shall not be deemed to affect the rights of any person in respect of any estate or interest therein."

6. On the evidence on record we entertain no doubt that the lower court was right in its conclusion that the Emur Bhagavathi Devaswom was the jenmi and the appellant the tenant of survey field Nos. 98,117 and 119. The evidence has been discussed at length in the judgment of the court below and we consider it unnecessary to cover the ground afresh. On the basis of the finding entered,