The central legal point established in the judgment is the analysis of adverse possession in a property dispute and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to nullify the order passed in the Inam Proceedings under Act 26 of 1963.

This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and decree in A.S.No.76 of 1993 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore. The defendants in O.S.No.52 of 1988 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Panruti are the appellants herein.

2. The averments in the plaint in brief sans irrelevant particulars are as follows:

The plaint schedule property is an erstwhile shrotrium village of Sirugramam Panruti Taluk. The property originally belonged to one Muruvan Samban, Manicka Samban and Ayyakannu Samban, sons of Udukkai Samban. They were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. On 20.6.1945, they executed a sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the first plaintiff. Since the property was not surveyed at the time of execution of the sale deed, only the boundary description were given to the property sold under the sale deed since the property is a shrotrium property. After the purchase, the first plaintiff had sunk a bore well and installed electric motor pumpset and was doing cultivation in the suit property. The first plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property continuously for more than 43 years. Prior to the purchase by the first plaintiff, his predecessors-in-title were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. After the Abolition of Inam, the property was surveyed. The first plaintiffs possession was recognised and the revenue records will go to establish his title and possession to the property. Subsequently, a notice was served on the first plaintiffs daughter Susila Ammal in respect of the suit property informing that her possession in the suit is encroachment of Government right. The first plaintiff was naturally shocked and surprised when he learnt that Government has chosen to sent notice of encroachment to his daughter. She has neither title nor interest in the suit property. The first plaintiff came to know that an enquiry was conducted by the Settlement Tahsildar in respect of the suit property and treated the suit property as Tharisu land. The first plaintifif is not aware of the proceedings initiated, he had no notice. The Village Administrative Officer also never informed him about the same. Even though after the alleged proceedings by the Settlement Tahsildar, the first plaintiff alone is in possession of the suit property. The first plaintiff was also informed the Government through several letters informing that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and patta may be granted in his favour and also to correct the revenue records suitably. But all his representations were ended in vain, the first plaintiff has issued a notice under Section 80 CPC to the first defendant. The said notice was served on the first defendant on 110. 1987 but the first defendant has not chosen to send any reply to the said notice. Hence the suit for declaration of his title and for consequential injunction.

3. The first defendant has adopted the written statement filed by the second defendant as follows:

The plaint schedule property was originally Malatar Poramboke in surothiram Village. The Pymash No.27 was Malattar Poramboke. After the conversion of Surothiram to Ryotwari Survey records were made and settlement register were came into existence. The Pymash No.27 has been surveyed and numbered as R.S.No.195/3,0.34.0 hectares. The suit property never belonged to Muruvan Samban, Manicka Samban and Ayyakannu Samban, sons of Udukkai Samban. Under the sale deed dated 20.6.1945, the plaintiff has not derived any title in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff was never in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Even the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property, he is to be considered only an unauthorised occupant as per law. He is only a trespassor as against the Government. The suit property is not a patta land. Neither the plaintiff nor his predecessors-in-title were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property fo