This second appeal arises out of a suit by the Sri Vedaranyeswaraswami Davasthanam at Vedaranyam for a declaration against the Province of Madras represented by the Collector of Tanjore as the first defendant that a portion of the Sannadhi Street in the village of Vedaranyam had been wrongly assigned by the first defendant to the second and for recovery of possession of the street property from the second defendant after removing the structures built upon it by him pursuant to the assignment. The plaintiff claimed to be the grantee of the entire village in inam from a Tanjore King of old under a grant which has not been produced but which, as appears from the inam title deed, was confirmed by the British Government in 1863. The plaintiff accordingly urged that the reversionary title to the street which was one dedicated to the public including the villagers was all along vested in it.

The second defendant based his title on an assignment made to him by the first defendant after its conversion into ryotwari land as the result of an order of the District Collector of Tanjore under section 20-A of the Madras Estates Land Act dated 31st July, 1944, which held that the street was one which had existed from before the permanent settlement, that the reversionary right to it was really that of the Government and that the property was no longer required for the purpose for which it had been originally intended and all along used. Both the defendants pleaded that the order of the District Collector was correct and that in any case, there having been no appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the order in the manner provided for in the sixth column of Part B of the schedule to the Act, the plaintiff was precluded from questioning its correctness by force of sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 189 of the Act. There was also a question of res judicata raised by the defendants in their pleadings on the basis of the decision of the District Court of Negapatam in A.S. No. 35 of 1940 confirmed by the High Court in C.R.P. No. 1506 of 1942 which related to another plot in the suit Village and in respect of which an order under section 20-A of the Act similar to the one in the present case was passed by the District Collector and upheld in appeal by the District Judge. The learned District Munsiff dismissed the suit, finding in favour of the defendants on all the pleas taken by them in answer to the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge, in appeal, reversed the District Munsiff’s decision on all the points. The first defendant accordingly appeals against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge.

The questions which arose for determination in the Courts below and which the learned Government Pleader has argued here are of some importance, although not of any great difficulty. After reserving decision and considering all the questions carefully I have come to the clear conclusion that the appeal must fail.

The first contention of the learned Government Pleader is that the reversionary right in respect of the street poramboke in the said inam village belonged to the Government. Whatever the arguability of the position taken up by him, on the authority of decisions like Narayanaswamy Naidu v. Secretary of State for India1 and Venkatarama Sivan v. The Secretary of State for India2, might have been prior to the latest ruling of the Privy Council in the Secretary of State v. Krishna Rao3, the position is, in my opinion, altogether incapable of any serious argument in view of that decision in which, construing an inam title deed like Ex. P-1 in the present case containing the words “besides poramboke”, their Lordships held that the decision in Narayanaswamy Naidu v. Secretary of State for India1 must be regarded as overruled by the Urlam case2. The Privy Council case like the case in Narayanaswamy Naidu v. Secretary of State for India1 was concerned, it is true, not with a street poramboke but with a river bed or channel poramboke us