The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is one for a permanent injunction restraining the first respondent Municipality from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In the plaint itself, it is categorically stated in paragraph 3 that the site in this suit property was classified as sandhu poramboke “and the plaintiff had originally put up a thatched house thereon at his own cost in 1987. In the plaint, there is no reference whatever to any permission h aving been granted by the Municipality or any lease granted by it. The plaint proceeds on the only footing that the plaintiff is in possession from 1957, having constructed a superstructure, and was entitled to continue on the property. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff has perfected his right over the suit property.

2. In the written statement, the first defendant contested the claim of the plaintiff and also raised an objection on the ground of non-joinder of the Government as a party as the land is a poramboke. Thereafter, the Government was impleaded as the second defendant in the suit.

3. The trial court granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff, while t