The central legal point established in the judgment is the plaintiff-Panchayat Union's right to impose reasonable restrictions and take action to protect communal property, as well as the evidentiary value of public documents and the plaintiff's right to file the suit without impleading the Government.

The plaintiff, who is the appellant herein, has called in question, the legality of the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur in and by which the judgment of the Additional District Munsif, Srivilliputtur, was set aside.

2. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as under:

The Thondamankulam tank is situated in S.Nos. 245, 296/2 and 296/3 in an area of 47.76 acres and water would spread in other lands located in S.Nos.291/1A1, 292/1A, 286/1A1, 286/1B-1A, 286/1B-1C, 285/1 and 283/1. Though the above lands around the tank are patta lands from the time immemorial, they are shown as water spread area in A Register and other revenue records. The Government, in order to avoid spreading of water to the south of the suit lands, acquired the suit lands and formed a bund and the excess water in the tank would go away by the outlet (kalingu) located in S. No.281. The suit land owners are entitled to cultivate punja crops when there is no water in the tank and the defendants, with a view to convert the suit lands into house-sites, as an attempt to raise the level of the suit lands, in mid-January 1985, put up a bund in S. No.291/1 and this bund would not only prevent spreading of water but would also obstruct the flow of water from the outlet (kalingu) and hence, the suit for the following reliefs:

a. declaration that the suit properties are submersible and water-spread area of Thondamankulam tank of Chettiarpatty Village

b. consequent permanent injunction restraining the defendants in raising the level of the suit lands and

c. mandatory injunction to remove the earthen bund put up in S. No.291/1 across the red line marked in the rough sketch.

3. The defendants, in their written statement, did not deny the existence of the tank in S.Nos. 245, 296/2 and 296/3 but disputed the plaintiffs claim that the other suit lands are also water-spread area. According to them, the suit lands around the suit tank are patta lands and not water-spread area, as manipulated in the Village A register and the bund as alleged to be put up by them, has been in existence for the last thirty years prior to the suit. It is the case of the defendants that the existence of a cinema theatre at the north of the suit lands and the emergency exit of the said cinema theatre towards the suit lands would go to show that the suit lands are not water-spread area. It is the further case of the defendants that there is no outlet (kalingu) as claimed by the plaintiff in S.No.281 and in fact, there is no outlet at all for the tank. The strong case of the defendants is that the suit is at the instigation one Varadharajulu who is the owner of the lands in S.Nos.295 and 296 and they have also been granted new pattas by the Government without any condition, and as such, the suit tank is in no way affected by the suit lands.

4. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and also Revenue Board Standing Orders, (R.B.S.O), holding that grant of patta is not an absolute right, decreed the suit as prayed for.

5. On the appeal by the defendants, the appellate court, based on the admission by P.W.1, Village Administrative Officer that Ex.A.1, Village Map and Ex.A.2, Adangal do not bear the Governments seal and the hand-writing in Ex.A.2, Adangal is not his and holding that A Register was not marked by the plaintiff and the Government, being the owner, ought to have been impleaded, set aside the judgment of the Trial Court, thereby allowing the appeal. Against this judgment of the lower appellate court, the present Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff.

6. This Second Appeal has been admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law:

a. Whether the plaintiff, one of the instrumentalities of the State, has sovereign powers to impose reasonable restrictions at any time, even over the patta lands?

b. Whether the lower appellate court is justified in not considering the Revenue Board Standing orders as per which the aut