John Wallis, C.J.

1. The question referred to us is, whether in a mirasi village the mirasidar is entitled to recover possession of a house site held under a patta from Government; and, to show what it involves, it may be well to state at once the circumstances in which it arises in the case under appeal. On the 16th November 1894 Mr. George Stuart Forbes, Acting Collector of Chingleput, passed orders on certain petitions praying for an extension of the cheri nattam, or part of the village site reserved for pariahs, in the village of Mannur in the Saidapet Taluk not far from Madras. He began by observing that out of the whole Survey No. 14A of 23 acres which was classed as village site, 97 cents, or nearly one acre, identical with Survey No 45 in the paimash or old survey, was shown in the paimash account as "Cherial Pizhakkadai" or reserved for pariahs. There had, he went on to say, been no erection on this site by any mirasidar since the date of the paimash (apparently about 1845) and the only building on it was an arrack shop. He did not interfere with this, but stated that the rest of the plot was available for sites in extension of the paracheri or pariahs quarters, and directed it to be laid out in streets and house sites in such a manner as to facilitate sanitation and the convenience of the residents. As regards any claims from mirasidars, ho merely observed that "the short usurpation by the mirasidars in recent times which is supported by the entry in the Adangal of Seshachellam Chetty (plaintiff) and others, is invalid and cannot be recognized." The Adangal (Exhibit G) is described as the village account of lands held in the village according to Survey numbers. The paimash register only contained the names of actual occupiers of sites in the nattam, as appears from Exhibit X, but in 1886 it came to light that at some time or other the names of the mirasidars had been inserted in the Adangal as well the names of the actual occupiers which alone appeared in the paimash register, and had also been inserted as owners of the unoccupied sites as regards which no names appeared in the paimash register; and this was apparently what Mr. Forbes was alluding to in speaking of the recent usurpation. Exhibits I to VIII are applications for sites put in immediately after the Collectors order by residents in the paracheri which, the endorsements show, were granted or refused according to the merits. This was in 1894 and early in 1895, and the present suit was not brought until January 1905 ten years later. The plaint alleges that the plot was the property of the plaintiffs and that they constructed and rented to the 13th defendant a leaf-roofed shop marked B in the annexed plan; that the defendants on 17-10-1903 took wrongful possession of the plot and erected the shed marked C; and that defendants 1 to 12 with the 13th defendant afterwards dismantled the shop B and erected the sheds D and E. Defendants 1 to 12 pleaded that the site was not the property of the plaintiffs but of Government who had granted the sites thereon. They alleged that the buildings C (a mission hall) and E (a sundries bazaar) had always been in existence and that D bad been erected three or four months previously as the shop B was in a ruined state. The 13th defendant pleaded that he was only a servant of the owner of the toddy shop, and the latter was added as 14th defendant but remained ex parte. The District Munsif at first dismissed the suit on the ground that the Secretary of State in Council was not a party, but on appeal the plaintiffs undertook to make him a party, and this having been done, the Collector filed a written statement on his behalf as 15th defendant in which he alleged that the plaintiffs have not and never had any title to the property, and never occupied it in a manner inconsistent with the rights of Government, and that Government had exercised rights of ownership over it to the knowledge of the mirasidars, The entries in the vi