The failure to establish title and possession, and the classification of the land as Government property influenced the court's decision.

1. This appeal has been filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the District Collector, Ramanathapuram District and by the District Health Officer, Ramanathapuram District against the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram at Madurai in O.S. No. 26 of 1989 dated 25.07.1990. The appellants were the defendants in the suit.

2. O.S. No. 26 of 1989 had been filed by the plaintiffs with respect to the suit property, which was described as 25 acres and 20 cents in S. No. 518 Rameswaram Village in Ramanathapuram District comprised in patta No. 925. It was stated that the family of the plaintiffs has been holding the suit property for about eight or nine decades. The patta originally stood in the name of Neelaganda S. Mahadeva Iyer. He had three sons namely, Neelakanda Joshi, Sindamani Rao Joshi and Radhakrishnan Joshi.

3. The first son died and his wife and two sons are the plaintiffs 2 and 3. The second son also died and his son is the fourth plaintiff. His another son also died and his legal heir is the fifth plaintiff. The third son is the sixth plaintiff and his sons are the seventh and eight plaintiffs. They are descendants of Neelaganda S. Mahadeva Iyer. It had been stated that the property was part of the erstwhile Ramanathapuram Zameendari. The Zameendari had granted patta. In 1945, another patta was granted in favour of the sons of Neelaganda S. Mahadeva Iyer. After his death, they were all in possession of the property. They were also paying the taxes. They claim to be continuance possession. They also claim to be owners of the property. They have been exercising their right of possession and ownership. It had not been interfered by the revenue authorities.

4. The old survey map shows that there were five temples in existence on the land. They belong to their family. They had been maintained by the plaintiffs. The Tahsildar of Ramnad once issued 'B' memo to the sixth plaintiff in the year 1969. That was objected and the Tahsildar dropped further action on that issue. There was a registered partition deed among the sons of Neelaganda S. Mahadeva Iyer.

5. The second defendant had attempted to make some marks on the lands. An order was passed by the Tahsildar, Rameswaram, on 25.10.1988. The defendants took an hostile attitude and they admitted to proceed with proposed construction. The plaintiffs issued notice under Section 80 CPC.

6. The suit has been filed seeking for a declaration that the suit property belongs to the plaintiffs and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from claiming any right and interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and also for costs.

7. The defendants filed a written statement. It was admitted that the suit property originally belonged to Ramanathapuram Zameendari. It was stated that Ramanathapuram Taluk, in which, the suit property is situated was vested with the Government under Act XXVI of 1948 on 07.09.1949 as per G.O.Ms. No. 2093 Revenue dated 11.08.1949, when the survey and settlement was effected in Fasli 1367.

8. The suit property was treated as Government land. It was classified as "Assessed Dry Waste." It was also subdivided. Grant of patta to Neelaganda S. Mahadeva Iyer, was denied as a false statement. It had been stated that the plaintiffs have no right over the suit property. They are not in possession of the suit property. Notice had been issued to the erstwhile ryots, who had valid documents to prove their possession and right in the lands.

9. During the time of survey and settlement, the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit property. It is true that there are five small temples. The plaintiffs will have to prove their right in the temples. The alleged partition deed among the plaintiffs was not admitted by the defendants. It is stated that the land is Government land. The Government has every right to deal with the lands.

10. A portion of the suit lands measuring 1 acre was leased to the Health D