The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 cannot be invoked in respect of village natham property, and the possession of the appellant and their predecessors in title was crucial in determining the outcome of the case.

1. The appellant, who is unsuccessful before the two Courts below filed the above Second Appeal against the judgment and Decree dated 31.10.1990 made in A.S.No. 30 of 1990 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Cuddalore confirming the Judgment and decree dated 22.12.1989 made in O.S.No.827 of 1987 on the file of the Additional District Munsif.

2. The case of the appellant as plaintiff is that the suit property is a village natham property at Kothawalcherry Village, Cuddalore Taluk. The property has been purchased by the brother of the appellant one Jothiprakash by means of registered sale deed dated 13.7.1980 from one Ramasamy Iyer. Subsequently, there was a partition dated 29.8.1983 between the plaintiff and his brother Jothiprakash and in that partition the suit property was allotted to the plaintiff . From the date of purchase, the plaintiff and his brother were in possession and enjoyment of the property in their own right. Even the vendors of the property under sale deed dated 13.7.1980 were in possession and enjoyment in their own right by putting up a house in the property. While that being so, the Tahsildar, Cuddalore issued a notice under the Land Encroachment Act for eviction of the appellant from the suit property. It is the case of the appellant that no proceeding under the Land Encroachment Act has been taken against the appellant since they are not encroacher and they are in possession of the property for several years. With these averments, the appellant filed a suit for declaration that the notice issued, which has been marked under Ex.A2 dated 31.8.1987 under the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act is invalid and for permanent injunction.

3. The suit was resisted by the defendants by filing a written statement by the third defendant, who is the Commissioner , Panchayat Union, Kurinjipadi, wherein it is submitted that there is absolutely no doubt about the character of the land. It is a village natham poramboke and as such it belongs to the Government. When the land belongs to the Government, neither the plaintiff nor his predecessors in title have no right over the property and as such the action taken under the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act 1905 is in accordance with law.

4. On the basis of these pleadings, necessary issues were framed as to Whether the notice under Ex.A2 dated 31.8.1987 is a valid notice and the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought for in the suit.

5. The trial Court held that admittedly the land is a village natham poramboke and as such it belongs to the Government only and any action taken by the Governmental authority to recover possession is in accordance with law and as such the invocation of the provisions under the Land Encroachment Act is in accordance with law and cannot be questioned by the appellant. This finding has been confirmed by the appellate Court on appeal being taken out by the appellant herein. The present appeal is filed against the said finding of the Courts below.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that when the character of the land has been admitted as a village natham, the invocation of the proceedings under the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act is unsustainable in law since there is no question of encroachment . It is the specific case of the appellant as plaintiff that they are in possession of the property on their own right and they purchased the property in the year 1980 from their predecessors in title. Even prior to the purchase, the predecessors-in title had put a house and they were in enjoyment of the property on their own right. Hence the finding given by the lower appellate Court is not in accordance with law. For that purpose the learned counsel relied on the decision of this Court in A.K.Thillaivanam and other v. District Collector Chengai Anna District and others, 1993 (3) LW 603.

7. Though notice has been served and appearance has been entered through the Government Pleader for