1. Plaintiff is the appellant. Suit was filed for a declaration and for consequential injunction. The suit property and its adjacent property on the east and south in a larger area in S.No.628/1,2 and 3 were minor Inam lands. The suit property is a part of S.No.628/2 corresponding to old Inam Adangal No.44. It originally belonged to plaintiff’s paternal grandfather Madura Nayaga Nadar and his elder brother Chinnathambi Nadar. They partitioned the property by a registered partition deed dated 30.1.1905. In that partition the suit property was allotted to Madura Nayaga Nadar and he was in possession and enjoyment. After his death, the plaintiff’s father, Parthan Chandran inherited the property and he was in possession and enjoyment. He mortgaged those properties by a mortgage deed dated 9.4.1933 and subsequently sold the property to the mortgagee. Subsequently, he re-purchased all the properties including the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 27.1.1943. He created usufructuary mortgage deed (othi) and obtained a lease in his favour. Later he redeemed the property and was in possession and enjoyment. The Minor Inam Abolition Act (Madras Act 30 of 1963) (hereinafter called Madras Act 30 of 1963) came into force. Settlement proceedings were carried out and pattas were granted to the persons who were entitled to and were in possession of the property. The Settlement Tahsildar issued patta No.15, by his order dated 3.6.1999 in favour of plaintiff’s father for s.No.628/1,2 and 3 corresponding to old Adangal No.65 to 65, 44 and 45. The plaintiff’s father died on 9.5.1973 and the plaintiff inherited the property and was in possession and enjoyment.

2. Plaintiff sold the properties in S.No.628/1, a major portion in 628/3 and a portion in 628/2. He obtained approval for layout plans from the Sivakasi Municipality. Out of the remaining unsold portion in S.No.628/2, measuring an extent of 34-1/2 cents, the plaintiff donated 8-1/2 cents to the Sivakasi Chamber of Commerce by a registered gift deed. The chamber of commerce obtained plan sanction and constructed a building for the chambers. The suit property was retained by the plaintiff and he was enjoying the property. However, the Municipality of Sivakasi started claiming that the property is vested with the Municipality and therefore, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration.

3. The suit was resisted by the sole defendant, Sivakasi Municipality through its Executive Authority viz., The Commissioner. The defendant would state that the suit property was a Oorani and known as Madura Nadar Oorani. It was a bathing ghat and the public of Sivakasi have been using the same for bathing and washing purposes from time immemorial. The public have been enjoying so more than 50 years and such enjoyment was open, continuous and adverse to the right and title of the plaintiff and his predecessor-in-title. The public have acquired a prescriptive title through adverse possession. The Oorani was never treated as private property. The settlement authorities had no right to grant patta for the Oorani which is a communal property under the Provisions of Madras Act 30 of 1963. The Sivakasi Town was surveyed between 1972 and 1977 after giving due notice to the public. The suit property is now registered in Town Survey as Ward-D Block No.18 and T.S.No.2 of an extent of 2510 sq.mtrs. Due publication has been made in the official gazette and therefore, the suit is not maintainable in law and the civil court has not jurisdiction. Since the suit property was Oorani it is vested with Municipality.

4. Based on the above averments, the learned Sub Judge, Srivilliputhur framed as many as seven issues and on the basis of oral and documentary evidence found that the suit property was a Oorani and has vested with Government under the Madras Act 30 of 1963 and the patta granted by the settlement officer is not valid and therefore, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decr