The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the powers of the District Collector and the procedure under Section 10(2) of the Survey and Boundaries Act.

1. The First Appellant/Plaintiff, during his life time, has preferred this present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 02.01.1997 made in A.S.No.33 of 1996 on the file of the Learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvannamalai.

2. During the pendency of the Second Appeal, the First Appellant/Plaintiff died and hence, his Legal Representatives have been added and brought on record as Appellants.

3. The First Appellate Court viz., Principle District Judge, Thiruvannamalai, in the Judgment in A.S.No.33 of 1996, has, among others things, observed that As per Chapter 4 Section 22, 23 of The Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 the District Collector and his Officers have got powers to measure the land and hence, the Revenue Department has objected to the enjoyment of the poramboke land by the Appellant/Plaintiff (since deceased) and they have issued Ex.B.5-Memo and that has not been received by him and the same has been refused, as evident from Ex.B.5 and inasmuch as the total extent in Survey No.662/1 is 3 acres and 55 cents as proved by the Respondents, the enjoyment of Appellant/Plaintiff in respect of 0.81 cents of land in Survey No.684/1 is of Government poramboke land and in the said land, the Appellant/Plaintiff (since deceased) has not acquired the right of adverse possession and the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court is a correct one and need not be interfered with and resultantly, dismissed the Appeal with costs.

4. Before the trial Court, three issues and two additional issues have been framed for determination during the trial of the case. On the side of the Appellant/ Plaintiff (deceased), witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 have been examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 have been marked. On the side of the Respondents/Defendants, witnesses D.W.1 to D.W.5 have been examined and Exs.B.1 to B.10 have been marked.

5. The trial Court, on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, has come to the conclusion that in Survey No.662 mentioned in the Plaint out of 4 acres and 36 cents, leaving the poramboke land in Survey No.684/1, the Appellant/Plaintiff (deceased) is entitled to claim the reliefs in respect of 3 acres and 55 cents of land as prayed for by him and consequently, decreed the Suit with costs.

6. Dissatisfied with the Judgment and Decree passed by the Learned Appellate Authority viz., Principal District Judge, Thiruvannamalai District in A.S.No.33 of 1996 dated 02.01.1997, the Appellant/Plaintiff (deceased) has preferred this Second Appeal before this Court and subsequent to his death, during the pendency of the Second Appeal, his Legal Representatives have been brought on record and they have been added as Appellants.

7. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, this Court has framed the following Substantial Questions of Law:

"1. Whether the Courts below are justified in invoking the Section 10 of the Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 without following the mandatory procedure under Section 10(2) of the Act before passing any Order?

2. Whether the Courts below are justified in rejecting the injunction in the absence of any contra evidence to disprove the appellants possession?" The Contentions, Discussions and Findings on Substantial Questions of Law on Point Nos.1 and 2:

8. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants urges before this Court that the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have rejected the claim of the Appellant/Plaintiff (since deceased) to an extent of 0.81 cents contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and as a matter of fact, the Appellant/Plaintiff (since deceased) has been in possession and enjoyment of the entire suit property without any interruption by the Respondents and this material fact has not been taken note of by both the Courts below, which has resulted in erroneous Judgments being passed against the Appellant/Plaintiff (since deceased).

9. It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants that the Appel