The suit for establishing the plaintiff’s title to the suit property is maintainable as there is no time limit prescribed in the Act for title objections.

1. The brief averments found in the suit plaint is as follows:

1(a) The suit property had been obtained by predecessors of the plaintiff as settlement property duly given by the Government to the distress people through the Christian Missionaries. The plaintiff became absolute owner of the properties after the death of his father. In the revenue records, the name of the plaintiff has been recorded as Owner and enjoyer of the suit property, In the yer 1956, the plaintiff had been given permit for irrigation by the L.B.P. Canal authorities. Since the rocky position is about 20 cents, they were excluded from irrigation and permit has been granted for 3 acres and 77 cents. After the formation of L.B.P. canal, the plaintiff is cultivating the lands with L.B>Pwater and raising crops. In the north western corner, the plaintiff had put up his cattle shed and Thondupatti within 15 cents. The same has been enclosed by Kalli fence on the south and Vallai Vela fence on the east. The plaintiff is keeping his agricultural implements in the thatched shed and is tethering cattle in the said Thondupatti. The 1st defendant was residing in the dilapidated thatched shed situated in the natham puramboke. The son of the defendant is now employed in the Police Department and he is very influential person.

1(b) On 25.11.1985 taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff in that place, the defendant and his son trespassed into the north western portion. The plaintiff after return asked abut the act of the first defendant, the 1st defendant and his son have assaulted the plaintiff. On the complaint given by the plaintiff, the Sub-Inspector of police enquired the 1st defendant and his son about the act of trespass, the first defendant had stated that under the resurvey his name was included as pattadar and that it is given as R.S. No. 690/1, punjai hectare 0.15.5. Thereafter the plaintiff made enquires with the revenue department and learnt that the suit enquiries sub divided some years ago and the same had been assigned resurvey number. The resurvey proceedings were done behind the back of the land owners and there was no enquiry as contemplated under the survey and boundaries Act. The plaintiff did not receive any notice from the survey authorities. The survey proceedings are not valid and binding on the plaintiff. He got the knowledge of resurvey proceedings for the first time only on 25.11.1985. Therefore, the defendants 2 and 3 are added as necessary parties. The first defendant is total stranger in so far as the suit properties are concerned and he has no right or title to the suit property. The alleged pata in favour of the first defendant is not valid. Since the 1st defendant is in unlawful occupation of the north western portion in the suit property, the plaintiff is filing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction for item No.1 and no possession in item No.2, and for declaration that the alleged resurvey done by the defendants 2 and 3 are void and for mandatory injunction against defendants 2 and 3 to carry out the changes by means of mandatory injunction.

2. In the written statement filed by the first defendant, the following contentions have been raised:-

2(a) It is not correct to state that the plaintiff is entitled to 3.77 acres. The allegation that after the formation of LBP canal, the plaintiff is cultivating the entire 3.77 acres and put up cattle shed and thondupatti si the north eastern corner and that the first defendant was residing in dilapidated house in Natham porambokku are not true. The first defendant had been in possession for the last 35 years, he had built house about 34 years ago. As per the orders of the Government, village had been resurveyed and as per the resurvey proceedings the first defendant had been given separate patta for the land in 690/1. The plaintiff has not questioned the resurvey proceedings before the proper authority within time. The proceedings cannot be questioned in this Court. Patta wa