JUDGMENT :

G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. praying against the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2008 in A.S. No. 156 of 2005, passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge of Namakkal, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2005 in O.S. No. 76 of 2003 passed by the Learned Additional District Munsif of Namakkal.

1. This Second Appeal is preferred by the 3rd and 4th defendant in Original Suit No. 76 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif court at Namakkal. Pappayee, the first respondent herein filed suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property based on the sale deed dated 02.02.1968. She had also sought for a further relief to declare the classification of the suit property as government porambokku as void and consequential relief of mandatory injunction to remove the structure put up by the 3rd and 4th defendants in the suit property. Permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 from interfering the plaintiff possession of the suit property. The District Collector of Namakkal, the Tashildar of Namakkal and the Appellants 1 and 2 herein were the defendants in the said suit. The Trial Court, allowed the suit and passed decree as prayed.

2. Challenging the Trial Court judgment and decree, the appellants 1 and 2 preferred appeal suit. The said first appeal dismissed confirming the Trial Court judgment and decree. Hence, the Second Appeal against the concurrent finding. Pending appeal, the first appellant/3rd defendant died. His legal representatives were brought on record as appellants 3 to 10. When the appeal was taken for final hearing, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant filed a memo dated 18.11.2020 stating that 4th and 8th appellants died. Pursuant to the arrangement between the family members, the 10th appellant alone is the contesting appellant. The death of 4th and 8th appellants was recorded.

3. Brief fact leading to the second appeal:

The subject matter of the suit property is the titled house measuring approximately 17 x 9 feet (elbow measure) equivalent to 26 x 14 feet and the vacant land appurtenant to it, in Namakkal Town, Bajanai Madam Street, Ward-C, Bock-3, Town Survey No. 30, old door No. 66-B, New door No. 39 bounded by South of the stage put up by the Panchayat Board; West of the Street; East of Ponnibayan wife Pappayee and Defendant house and North of the street leading to Mariamman Koil.

4. The plaintiff case is that, the suit property originally owned by on Varthammal, who got the property under a sale deed dated 29.07.1943. Later it was purchased by Kozhuntha Gounder on 07.09.1960. The plaintiff purchased the property vide sale deed dated 02.02.1968 executed by Kozhuntha Gounder. At the time of her purchase, it was a vacant site. The plaintiff put up a thatched house and living in it. During a fire accident, the hut got gutted and the documents got destroyed in the fire accident. The plaintiff is residing in the property bearing door No. 36-B, New door No. 39. The defendants 3 and 4, who are husband and wife, when they tried to prevent the plaintiff putting up a construction on the west, within her boundary, she filed O.S. No. 6/1998. During the trial of that suit, the Village Officer deposed that the suit land is classified as Government Poramboke. Therefore, she withdrew the suit O.S. No. 6/1998 with liberty to file fresh suit impleading the Government as a party defendant. It is averred in the plaint that, the classification of the suit land as Government Poramboke without causing notice to the plaintiff is bad. The said classification will not bind the plaintiff who have valid title over the property under the sale deed.

5. The Second Defendant Tahsildar, Namakkal, on his behalf and on behalf of the 1st defendant District collector in the written statement had denied the claim of the plaintiff regarding the title over the suit land. As per the revenue records, the property in S. No. 30 shown a