The suit filed without impleading the Government as a party in a case involving Poramboke lands was not maintainable, leading to the dismissal of the original suit.

The appellants, who are the defendants in the original suit filed this second appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 28.06.2004 made in A.S.No.13 of 2003, on the file of Subordinate Court, Hosur, wherein partly reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2001 made in O.S.No.125 of 1998 on the file of District Munsif Court, Denkanikottai.

2. For the sake of convenience, the defendants in the original suit are referred as appellants and the plaintiff in the original suit is referred as respondent hereafter.

3. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Briefly the case of the respondent is that the suit property item-1 is Poramboke land belongs to the Government and it is assessed as waste dry land. Originally the above said item No.1 was in possession and enjoyment of the respondent's father namely Chandirappa @ Sanjeevappa. After his death, the respondent is in possession over the suit property. The respondent growing ground nut and other crops in the above said property. The respondent also had patta lands adjacent to the suit property and in the patta land, the respondent had dig a well through which taking water and cultivating item 1 of the suit property. The respondent also paying B-memo charges to Government and in the Adangal Register stands in the name of respondent. The suit item No.2 is odai Poramboke land and it is also belongs to Government. The respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the suit item 2 and also paying S.T.Charges to the Government. Therefore, the respondent is absolute possession and enjoyment of both the suit properties. The 1st appellant purchased portion of patta land from the respondent and the appellants offered to purchase the suit properties, but, the respondent declined to sell the same. Hence, the appellants have denied the title and disputed the possession and enjoyment of the respondent. Hence, the suit.

4. The appellants have filed a detailed written statement and in which, it is stated that the boundaries on the East and West of item No.1 are wrongly given instead of krishnappa patta land on the east and podiappa land on the west. Likewise the boundaries on the east, west and north of item No.2 are wrongly given instead of third respondent/third defendant patta land on the east Veera padrappa poramboke land on the west and pappanna land on the north. The respondent has not disputed that the suit item No.1 is assessed waste dry land and it was originally in possession of the respondent's father and after that the respondent herein was in possession till October 1991. According to the appellants, the respondent is not at all in possession of suit item No.1 from October 1991 onwards and the respondent does not have landed property to the vicinity of the suit properties. Further, the respondent and his father sold all the adjacent properties under various sale deeds dated 24.01.1983, 26.10.1984, 21.08.1986 and 14.03.1988, in favour of the appellants 3 and 4 and therefore, neither the respondent nor respondent's family own or possess any landed property anywhere surrounding the suit properties. Further, the alleged well does not belongs to the respondent. The respondent has not paying B-memo charges to the Government in respect of the suit properties and only the appellants have paid 2A charges to the Government till 1997, in the name of 4th appellant. The respondent influenced the revenue authorities and wrongly made in Adangal records. Further, the alleged B-memo receipts not related to the suit properties. Out of total extent of 0.75 acres, in item 1, one Lagumappa is in possession of 20 cents on the north and the appellants are in possession of 0.55 acres on the south. Since the respondent sold away all his patta lands, the respondent has given up his possession of suit item 1 in favour of 3rd appellant, by way of Muchalika dated 12.10.1991 and therefore, the respondent is estopped from questioning the possession of suit item No