The State of Madras, the defendant in a suit, has filed this second appeal and the question raised is the jurisdiction of the civil Court in a segment of the field covered by the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. There has been no challenge before me to the findings on the merits of the case. The plaintiff is Ramalingaswamigal Madam, North Tiruppachetti, represented by its trustee Sutha Chitanya Swamigal and the suit is for a declaration of the title of the Madam to the suit property S.No. 114 and for an Injunction against the State’s interference with the enjoyment of the property by the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that on the suit property, the Madam in question was situated in a portion that as an adjunct to the Madam, shrines, Mantapam, house for Stanicks, Oorani, well and coconut trees all came into existence, and that in January, 1938 the Sivaganga Estate recognised the Madam’s actual enjoyment of the property and assigned the same to the plaintiff represented by the trustee, subject to the payment of rent of Re. 1 per acre besides cesses. Exhibit A-1 dated 29th January, 1938 is the order of the Sivaganga Estate providing for the issue of a Teervapat Cowle patta for the land in favour of Sutha Chaithanya Swamigal as the trustee of the Madam. S. No. 114 now stands sub-divided into S. No. 114/1 of an extent of 7 cents, S.No. 114/2 of an extent of 3 acres 48 cents. While the plaintiff’s case is that the suit property divided into the sub-divisions is that of the plaintiff, the contention on behalf of the State is that the suit property is communal land, that S. No. 114/1 was occupied by Udayanatchiamman Koil worshipped by Harijans and that S. No. 114/2 contained a public Oorani, a burial ground for the Asari community and another burning ground for the Brahmins. It was therefore contended that the entire suit property was communal poromboke which vested in the Government. The Courts below, on an exhaustive consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, negatived the contention of the State and found for the plaintiff. Kist receipts have been produced by the plaintiff from 1944 to 1958 ihowing the plaintiff’s possession, and of these kist receipts while Exhibits A-2 to A-8 have been issued by the Zamindar, Exhibits A-9 to A-13 have been issued by the Government after taking over of the Sivaganga Estate by the State under Abolition Act. The suit property had been fenced even in 1940 and there was evidence of buildings on the property before 1920. After the Abolition Act the plaintiff had sought recognition of his title. On 29th December, 1953 the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer Sivaganga, informed the plaintiff that his petition would be considered at the time of the section 11 enquiry. There is an order Exhibit B-4 dated 25th June, 1954, holding that no one is entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of the field. It purports to be passed suo moto and also on the petition of Sutha Chaithanya Swamigal. It is noticed there that as per the Old Land Register the entire survey field was noted as an Oorani Poramboke, that the landholder had assigned the Kudiwaram right in 1938 in the entire field on a nominal nazar, because presumably the entire extent was encroached upon and reference was made to the absence of sanction under section 20 of the Estates Land Act. There is no evidence of this order having been communicated then and there to the plaintiff. After the issue of suit notice by the plaintiff in 1957, the plaintiff received a reply Exhibit A-17 referring to the order Exhibit B-4 and stating that it would take effect from 1st July, 1957. It was stated in the reply that the plaintiff had no valid cause of action. A fresh notice was issued by the plaintiff before the filing of the suit. The case of the plaintiff was that the order purported to have been passed on 25th June, 1954, was on an erroneous view that the suit property was an Oorani Poramboke while the reco