The main legal point established in the judgment is that the completion of the registry contract is essential for the assignment of land, and the deposit of tharavila alone does not confer any right on the applicant to get the land assigned in his favor.

T.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J.

1. The appeal filed by the defendant - the State of Kerala arises out of a suit filed by the Nellithanam Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd., represented by its Managing Director Dr. M. K. Antony for declaration of title to and possession of the plaint properties covering an extent of 174 acres and 21 cents in Pallivasal pakuthy and to compel the defendant to register the land in favour of the plaintiff. The suit was decreed by the court below. The facts which are stated below are not disputed between the parties.

Dr. M. K. Antony filed an application, Ext. P-1, dated 24-2-1937 (13-7-1112) for getting registry of 150 acres from Survey No. 19/1 of Pallivasal pakuthy puduval land belonging to the State in Form A prescribed by the Cardamom Rules dated the 30th September, 1935, framed by the Travancore Government under S.7 of the Land Assignment Act, III of 1097. After the preliminary enquiry contemplated in R.5 of the Cardamom Rules the application was admitted by the Commissioner, Devicolam, on 29-4-1937 (17-9-1112). Notices under R.6 were published and no objections were received and the Tahsildar, Devicolam, forwarded the records to the Commissioner, Devicolam, for further action on 11-7-1937 (2-12-1112). In pursuance to the application dated 12-1-1938 filed by Dr. M. K. Antony praying for permission to enter on 50 acres out of the 150 acres included in Ext. P.1 the Commissioner, Devicolam, granted the permission as evidenced by Ext. P.9 dated 21-3-1938 (8-8-1113). On actual survey the area applied for in Ext. P.1 by Dr. Antony was found to be 224 acres 21 cents. Dr. Antony filed Ext. P.10 petition dated 6-4-1938 (24-8-1113) that the excess area of 74 acres and 21 cents may also be registered to him. The initial deposits to be made for the lands applied for under Exts. P.1 and P. 10 were also deposited by Dr. Antony. The Commissioner, Devicolam, in his order dated 3-6-1938 directed that the excess area of 74 acres 21 cents should be reserved as tharisu lands with a view to satisfy other applicants and directed the completion of the registry proceedings in respect of 150 acres alone included in Ext. P.1. Dr. M. K. Antony filed an appeal against the decision of the Commissioner, Devicolam, before the Land Revenue and Income Tax Commission, Trivandrum, who by his order Ext. P.15 dated 22-6-1939 directed steps to be taken in accordance with the rules for the registry of 74 acres 21 cents as well. In the meanwhile, Dr. M. K. Antony, inspite of Ext. P.9, encroached on the entire are of 224 acres and 21 cents and therefore proceedings under the Travancore Land Conservancy Act were taken against Dr. M. K. Antony for evicting him from 174 acres and 21 cents. This resulted in the order Ext. D.2 dated 14-11-1945 (29-3-1121) by the Tahsildar, Devicolam, directing the eviction of Dr. Antony and also imposing fine, prohibitory assessment etc. The Government of Travancore passed Ext. D.6 proceedings on 13-6-1942 on Ext. P.1 application directing the registry of only 50 acres out of the total area of 274 acres and 21 cents on payment of tharavila at Rs. 60/- per acre and the appropriate assessment and rejected the prayer in respect of the registry of the remaining area. Subsequent to Ext. D.2 proceedings, Dr. M. K. Antony filed Ext. D.4 application before the Taluk Office, Devicolam, for getting the plaint property 174 acres 21 cents on kuthakapattom for a period of 12 years. This prayer was repeated by him in Ext. D.5 dated 15-4-1946 (2-9-1121) another application made before the Tahsildar, Devicolam. In spite of these applications the prayer of Dr. Antony was rejected and it is the contention of the State that Dr. Antony was evicted from 174 acres 21 cents of land. The plaintiff's contention is that Exts. P.1 and P.10 applications were made by Dr. M. K. Antony on behalf of and for the benefit of the plaintiff and the various proceedings conducted by the Revenue authorities on behalf of the State will evidence that t