Key Points: - The court held that the grant of land (S. No. 261.2 F-4) for a girls school is legal, and the alleged customary rights of villagers in the waste were not established. (!) - It was not disputable that Nattam poramboke may be granted for building purposes, but villagers claimed rights incompatible with such a grant; the court examined whether such rights existed by custom or long enjoyment. (!) - The judgment discusses that customary rights or long-continued use must be reasonable, certain as to extent, and openly enjoyed; the evidence here was insufficient to establish a customary right or easement under the Easements Act. (!) (!) - The court found no fixed period or clear evidence to support a customary right arising from long enjoyment or grant, distinguishing between customary rights and customary easements. (!) (!) - Ex. A, an endorsement regarding keeping the land as threshing floor for public use, was not considered sufficient evidence of Government recognition or a fresh grant of rights to the villagers. (!) (!) - The final decision: the suit was dismissed; the District Munsif’s decree was restored, costs awarded. (!) - The lower appellate Court’s finding of a customary right was not sustained; the appellants succeeded in showing lack of established customary rights. (!) (!)

What is the legality of granting Nattam poramboke land for building a girls' school against alleged village rights to use the land for agricultural purposes?

What are the conditions under which customary rights or long enjoyment can establish a right to use building site poramboke land?

What is the status of Ex. A and whether it constitutes an acknowledgment of villagers' rights to the suit land?