Judgement not rendered as non-est.

V. Ratnam, J.

1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 609 of 1973, District Munsifs Court, Namakkal, is the appellant in this second appeal. That suit was instituted by the appellant for a declaration that he is the owner of the suit properties, namely, the southern fence of Survey No. 233|17 with its site, the northern fence of Survey Nos. 237|1 and 237|13 with its site and the eastern fence of Survey Nos. 237|3 and 237|8 with its site and; for an injunction restraining the State of Tamil Nadu from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the same. According to the case of the appellant, he was the owner of shares in lands locally known as Vadaman Punjai and 'Kuttaparai Punjai also known as Kuttaparai punjai and Kudaparai punjai in Vagurampatti village forming part of Kondichettipatti mitta abolished and taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act XXVI of 1948. After the take over, there was a survey of the land(s) belonging to the appellant wherein his lands were surveyed as parts of Survey Nos. 233 and 237. The holdings in Vadaman Punjai were correlated to Survey No. 233|7, white the holdings in Kuttaparai punjai had been measured as Survey Nos. 231|11, 237|3 and 237|8. To the south of Vadaman Punjai, there is a Kai Itteri or a foot-path, which is the northern boundary for the portions owned by the appellant in Kuttaiparai punjai and this Kai Itteri had been surveyed as Survey No. 233|9, while the Itteri on the east of Kuttaiparai punjai had been measured as Survey No. 237|1. In the rough plan filed by the appellant, his portion in Vadaman punjai was shown as X, while the holdings in Kuttaiparai punjai had been mentioned1 as XI, X2 and X3. The east-west Kai Itteri was shown as AB and the Itteri running north south as AC. Between the portion(r) X and AB Kai Itteri and on the south of AB and also on the either side of AC, there are fences and the fences separating the X portion from the Kai Itteri AB on its south and the fences; separating XI and X2 portions from AB Kai Itteri on the north with the sites over which they stand belong to the appellant. Similarly, the north-south fences in Survey Nos. 237|3 (X2 portion) and Survey No. 237|8 (X3 portion) also with the sites belong to him and these fences had been shown in red colour. The appellant claimed that these fences as well as the sites over which they stood are part of the appellant's holdings. During the survey undertaken by the Government consequent to the application of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act XXVI of 1948, the lines along which the fences stood had been wrongly measured as forming part of Survey Nos. 23319 and 236|1 and included therein, treating them as poramlbokes. The appellant put forth the plea that he and his predecessors-in-title had been in possession for more than 60 years openly, exclusively and continuously and had thus acquired prescriptive title to those, properties'. The further case of the appellant was that he was away in Singapore and became aware of the wrong demarcation some time in 1968 and thereafter he preferred a petition to the District Revenue Officer, Salem, for the grant of a ryotwari patta outside the purview of the Tamil Nadu Act XXVI of 1948. Meanwhile, proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act for the eviction of the appellant and the appellant stated that those proceedings were initiated on; representations of persons who were motivated by jealously. The appellant claimed that though, the AB itteri was formed for the exclusive use of the owners of Vadaman punjai and Kuttaiparai punjai, there was no objection for the use of AD itteri by others for taking men and cattle. The appellant further claimed that the trees which are more than 70 years old had been maintained by him and his predecessors and the fences were put up' to protect the lands against straying cattle. The application! preferred by the appellant for the grant of a ryotwari patta outside the purv