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 Chandrav 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 repurchased 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 plaintiffs 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 34½ cents, the plaintiff donated 8½ 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 vested with Government under the Madras Act 30 of 1963 and the patu granted by the settlement officer is not valid and therefore, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal on various grounds and more particularly on the ground that trial Court has erred in holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to the suit property as it has been vested with the Government under the Madras Act 30 of 1963 and also on the ground that the suit property was not a Oorani and the Settlement Officer issued a Patta only for a vacant land and not for a Oorani.

3.The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the suit property was public or private Oorani vested with the Government under the Madras Act of 1963 and whether the patta granted by the Settlement Officer is valid.

4.The admitted facts are as follows:

S. No. 68/1, 2 and 3 were previously Minor Inam lands. The suit property is part of S. No. 628/2. Originally, the entire property was partitioned by two brothers viz., Channathambi Nadar and Madura Nayaga Nadar under Exhibit A1 dated 30.1.1905. The property was allotted to Madura Nayaga Nadar and was inherited by plaintiff’s father Parthanchandran. In the old Inam survey No. 64 and in Adangal No. 44, the property was described as Oorani. The plaintiff’s father Parthanchandran had dealt with the property by various deeds between the year 9.4.1933 and 8.10.1953 under Exhibits A2 to A7.

5.The Minor Inam Abolition Act (Madras Act 30 of 1963) was enacted in the year 1963 (herein after called as Act 30 of 1963). The Settlement Tahsildar has issued a patta in Exhibit A8 dated 3.6.1969 in favour of plaintiff’s father under Exhi