NATARAJAN, J:—

1. The second and the third defendants in O.S. No, 9 of 1965 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga, are the respective appellants in these two appeals and the memorandum of cross objections has been preferred by the plaintiff therein.

2. The suit property, which the plaintiff conceded before the trial court to be 14534 sq. ft. in extent and not 16800 sq. ft. as set out in the plaint, was purchased by the plaintiff under two sale deeds, Ex. A-9 and A-10. On the plaintiff being approached during September-October 1959 by the President and the Executive Officer of the Sivaganga Panchayat, the first defendant in the suit, for parting with the site to enable the Panchayat to erect its water works thereon and on being promised of proper compensation therefor as fixed by the Government, the plaintiff delivered possession of the suit site in May-June 1960 to the first defendant and the first defendant constructed its water works on the site by December 1961. When the plaintiff demanded the compensation amount, promised to him, the first defendant sent a reply stating that the Tahsildar had declared the suit site to be a Government poramboke and that as such, the plaintiff was not entitled to any compensation. It was, thereafter, the plaintiff came forward with the suit for a declaration that she had title to the suit property and that she should be paid compensation for the site taken over by the first defendant at the rate of Rs. 1 per sq. ft.

3. Besides the first defendant, the plaintiff impleaded the State of Madras, as the second defendant and the Sivaganga Municipality which has succeeded the Sivaganga Panchayat as the third defendant.

4. The defence set up by the first defendant and adopted by the third defendant was that the plaintiff and her predecessor-in-interest had no title to the suit property, that the first defendant never admitted the title of the plaintiff nor committed itself at any time to pay compensation for the transfer of the site, that the site had been declared to be a poramboke site and that, in any event, the compensation claimed was excessive.

5. The second defendant raised the defence that a portion of the suit site formed part of S. No. 48 and was a road poramboke, that the remaining portion of the site forming part of S. No. 74 was a natham poramboke, that S. No. 48 had been taken over under the Inam Abolition Act, 26 of 1963, that S. No. 74 is a T.D. minor inam which vested with the State Government under the Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 30 of 1963, that the plaintiff ought to agitate her remedies in the proper forum constituted tinder the said Act, that toe civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that, in any event, the compensation claimed was excessive.

6. On these pleadings, the learned Subordinate Judge framed the following issues for trial:—

1. Whether the plaintiff has title to the suit property?

2. Whether the first defendant is estopped front denying the title of the plaintiff?

3. What compensation is the plaintiff entitled to?

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable because of the provisions of Madras Act 26 of 1963 and Madras Act 30 of 1963?

5. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled?

After a careful consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff had title to the suit property, that the defendant was estopped from denying the title of the plaintiff, that the civil court had jurisdiction to maintain the suit and that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the site taken over from her. As regards the quantum of compensation, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the rate of 25 paise per sq. ft. would be a reasonable one, and consequently, gave a decree for Rs. 3,633 together with interest and proportionate costs.

7. The second and the third defendants have filed their respective appeals to assail the findings of the learned Subordina