Aggrieved over the concurrent findings of the learned Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam and the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, the present Second Appeal has been filed.

2. The parties are referred as per the ranking before the trial Court. The suit property is Government Poramboke land. One Mr.Kannan encroached upon the same and paid penalty and enjoyed the property more than 50 years. Thereafter, the possessory right was transferred to the Plaintiff and one another Mr.Kannan for a sum of Rs.2,000/- vide receipt dated 19.02.1986. The Plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and planted cashew trees to the extent of one acre and another 1 ½ acres cultivating native crops. The Plaintiff has applied for grant of patta. The Defendants tried to encroach upon the suit property. Hence, the suit filed by the Plaintiff for declaration of possessory right and also for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants.

3. It is the contention of the Defendants that the suit property is classified as Vettuvazhi Puramboke land and general public used to collect soil from the above area for festivals. In their village a temple known as “Muthumariamman Temple” was constructed. In order to acquire income for the maintenance of the temple all the villagers cultivated cashew trees and eucalyptus trees. Therefore, the Plaintiff has no right to claim possession over the suit property. The identification of the property was not given in the plaint. Similarly, the receipt dated 19.2.1986 relied upon by the plaintiff is not admissible in the evidence. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. Initially three issues were framed by the trial Court which are as follows:

(i) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for Declaration?

(ii) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for Permanent Injunction?

(iii) What other relief the parties are entitled to?

4.(a) Subsequently two additional issues were framed by the trial court. They are,

(iv) Whether the receipt dated 19.12.1986 filed by the plaintiff is admissible as plaintiff side evidence?

(v) Whether the suit has been filed as against the relevant parties?

5. On the side of the Plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to P.Ws.3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to Exs.A.7 were marked. On the side of the Defendants, two witnesses were examined and three exhibits were marked. Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff. The First Appellate Court also confirmed the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court, as against which, present Second Appeal has been filed. While admitting the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been framed:

(i) Whether the Court is correct in marking and considering Ex.A.1 by treating it as a mere receipt for payment, an unstamped and unregistered document conveying right, claim for possession in favour of the respondent, with full right of alienation?

(ii) Is it not the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove his possession of vettukuzhi a proamboke Government land beyond doubt with doubt with documents of 'A' Register?

(iii) Whether kist payments under Ex.A2 to A7 made by Plaintiff is proof for plaintiff's possession, when the kist receipt Ex.A7 differs from other exhibits?

(iv) Whether a suit for declaration and possession in respect of natham property is maintainable without impleading the local body a necessary as a party to decide the issue?

(v) Does not the non consideration of the Commissioner application and reception of additional documents vitiates the judgment?

6. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/Defendants Mr.K.V. Ananthakrishnan mainly contended that Ex.A.1 is not admissible. Only based on the Ex.A.1 Receipt, possessary right was claimed by the Plaintiff. Ex.A.1 neither registered nor stamped. Therefore, it is not admissible in evidence and hit by Section 17 Indian Registration Act. Similarly, except kist receipt and penalty collected from the predecessor of the Plaintiff, no other documents were filed by the Plaintiff to prove his p