The legal principle established in the judgment is that once a person occupies a gramanatham land and puts up construction, the character of the property changes, and the government has no say in the right accrued to the person who occupied the gramanatham land.

1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the 1st appellate Court viz., the District Judge, Srivilliputhur, in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant in A.S.No.307 of 1993, dated 25.07.1995, by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Principal District Munsif, Sattur, in O.S.No.418 of 1984, dated 30.07.1987.

2. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, are as follows:

(i) The suit property situated in Irukkankudi Melmadai village was originally belonged to one Saminatha Pattar, who enjoyed the said property ancestrally for over 100 years and the said property comprised houses and stable for cattle. However, the buildings raised in the said property fell down except one house and the same remained as vacant sites. The tax registry with the panchayat was standing in the name of Saminatha Pattar and the tax was paid by him. The said Saminatha Pattar died some 25 years back without any issues. His wife predeceased him and his brothers sons viz., Thangasamy Pattar and Parasurama Pattar inherited the said property as the legal representatives of the said Saminatha Pattar and they were enjoying the said property. The tax payable to the panchayat was also paid by them in the name of Saminatha Pattar.

(ii) The plaintiffs and one Muthanna pillai as representatives of Irukkangudi Melatheru people purchased the suit property for a sum of Rs.14,000/-on 13.10.1982 from the legal representatives of Saminatha Pattar and took possession of the suit property. The said Muthanna Pillai died and his legal representatives were not impleaded since he had no personal interest in the said property. The Tahsildar of Sattur, with a view to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs, had granted patta in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 in respect of the suit property. The plaintiffs objected and filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer and on enquiry, the Revenue Divisional Officer, set aside the order on 09.09.1984, passed by the Tahsildar. However, the said Revenue Divisional Officer, mentioned in the order that the property was not belonging to the plaintiffs and it is belonging to the Government. Further, the Revenue Divisional Order had passed an order to issue patta in favour of the 3rd defendant. The order of the Revenue Divisional Officer was not valid in law. The defendants did not deny the rights of the plaintiffs over the buildings situated on the southern side of the property. The property lying on the immediate south of the suit property was purchased by one Subbiah Poosari, son of Periya Ramasamy Poosari, on 04.06.1956, in which, the suit property was shown as northern boundary with the description that it was belonging to Saminatha Pattar. Similarly, the sale deed dated 28.08.1957, in which, the property lying on the north of the suit property was sold by one Marimuthu Asari, son of Vellaiyan Asari, in which, the southern boundary was shown as the property belonged to Saminatha Pattar. Furthermore, one Mariappan Asari, son of Periya Karmegam Asari purchased the property on 17.02.1968, in which, the suit property was shown as a boundary as belonged to Thangasamy Pattar. Similarly, the property lying on the northern side was purchased on 01.05.1972 by the Irukkangudi Arulmighu Mariamman temple Devasthanam, in which, the suit property was shown as southern boundary as belonging to Thangasamy Pattar. Yet another sale deed dated 19.12.1979, where, one Mariappan Chettiar purchased a house lying on the southern side of the suit property from one Muthuraman Poosari, in which, the northern boundary was shown as belonging to Thangasamy Pattar. The Revenue Divisional Officer, had come to a conclusion that the suit property belonged to Government on the sole ground that the suit property was classified as gramanatham, which is not correct. The property in gramanatham is meant for the occupation of the village people for their personal use. The defendants cannot claim any right over the said pro