The authority of the government to decide on land assignment based on eligibility and merits, and the lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to issue a mandatory injunction in such cases.

The plaintiff, who lost in both Courts below, is the appellant herein.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to assign the suit lands to him.

3. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit property is a Government Poromboke land and he is in enjoyment of the same and he is a poor agriculturalist. The respondents 1 to 3 after conducting enquiry came forward to assign the land to him and the 5th defendant, who is otherwise rich filed the suit in O.S.No.374 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pudukkottai, for injunction restraining the respondents from assigning the land to the plaintiff herein, and that suit was dismissed and also confirmed by the first appellate Court and the District Collector, Pudukkottai, has recommended the land to be assigned to him on merits and eligibility and as the respondents 1 to 3 have not taken any steps, the present suit was filed by him.

4. The respondents 1 to 3 filed a written statement denying the allegations of the plaintiff and contended that the lands cannot be assigned to the plaintiff as he owns 0.55.05 Acres of 'punja' land and in Patta No.77 of an extent of 0.09.0 Acres of Nanja lands in Alankadu village and the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit property.

5. The 4th defendant filed a separate statement stating that he has requested the defendants 1 to 3 for assignment of the suit property to the Panchayat for forming an orchard and the defendants 1 to 3 have also agreed and there was no proposal by the defendants 1 to 3 to assign the land in favour of the plaintiff and if the lands were assigned to the 4th defendant, the village would be benefited and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief.

6. The 5th defendant is the son of Natesa Irungular, who filed O.S.No.374 of 1981. According to the 5th defendant, he and his father are in enjoyment of the suit property and they have also prescribed title by adverse possession.

7. Before the lower Court, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and examined 3 other witnesses and marked 13 documents and on the side of the defendants, 3 witnesses were examined and the 5th defendant was examined as D.W.3 and 19 documents were marked and through witness documents Exs.C1 to Ex.C4 were marked.

8. On the basis of the above pleadings and evidence the trial Court framed four issues and also framed two additional issues and after carefully going through the oral and documentary evidence held that the 5th defendant is in possession of the property in pursuance to the permission granted by the Government and hence, his claim of adverse possession was already rejected by the High Court and held that he has not prescribed title by adverse possession.

9. The trial Court after analyzing the evidence has rightly held that the defendants/respondents 1 to 3 alone are competent to decide whether the plaintiff is a poor agriculturalist or not and whether the plaintiff is entitled for assignment or not and that cannot be decided by the Civil Court and that has to be decided by the authorities as per Rule and dismissed the suit.

10. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed appeal Suit No.60 of 2007 and the learned first appellant Court after framing proper points for consideration, considered and discussed the oral and documentary evidence, confirmed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, this second appeal is filed by the plaintiff as appellant.

11. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:

a. Whether an averments given in a written statement of an earlier suit is an “admission” within the meaning of Section 19 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?

b. Whether, the plaintiff is bound to prove his case irrespective of the admission of DW1 in view of Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?

c. Whether, a defendant is entitled to vary his earlier vers