JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, against the Judgment and Decree dated 29.4.04 passed in A.S.No.175 of 2003 on the file of II Additional Sub Court, Villupuram confirming the judgment and the decree dated 1.4.2002 passed in O.S.No.248 of 2000 before the II Additional District Munsif Court, Thirukovilur.)

(This case was heard through Video Conferencing)

1. This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below.

2. The Appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit O.S.No.248 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Thirukovilur and the respondents are the defendants in the said suit. In the forthcoming paragraphs, the parties are described as per their litigative status in the suit.

3. The suit was filed for a declaration of title over the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The suit property is situated in grama natham S.No.77/1 -New R.S.No.272/7 measuring EW 20 feet and NS 17 feet (totally measuring 340 sq.ft.) with a hut and a cattle shed.

4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the first and second plaintiffs are the sons of the third plaintiff and the third plaintiff inherited the property from his ancestors. According to the plaintiffs, after considering the long possession and enjoyment of the property by the third plaintiff, the Government of Tamil Nadu vide a proceeding H.S.No.395/77 dated 17.04.1968 granted patta for the suit schedule property in favour of the third plaintiff which has been marked as Ex.A1 before the Trial Court. According to the plaintiffs, they are in possession of the suit schedule property for more than 35 years and they are claiming ownership of the suit schedule property by prescription of title by adverse possession also. According to the plaintiffs, on 23.06.2000 when the plaintiffs started to put up a hut, the defendants interfered and wanted to purchase the plaintiffs land which the plaintiffs refused and since then a dispute arose between them.

5. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that they have also given a Police complaint against the defendants for their unlawful attempt to disturb their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

6. However, it is the case of the respondents/defendants that the suit schedule property is a grama natham property and does not belong to the Government of Tamil Nadu. According to them, the Government had no right to grant assignment of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs. It is their case that as per the conditions specified in the assignment order (Ex.A1), the third plaintiff has also not put up a house within 6 months from the date of assignment. It is also their case that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property and therefore they cannot claim title by prescription. They have also disputed the valuation of the suit as according to them, the market value of the suit schedule property is much higher than what was valued by the plaintiffs in the suit. Further, it is their case that they have been using the suit schedule property to dump waste, have haystacks and to tie cattle and they are also claiming title of the property by adverse possession.

7. The Trial Court framed issues and after trial, dismissed the suit O.S.No.248 of 2000 by its judgment and decree dated 01.04.2002 by giving the following findings:

(a) The assignment of the suit schedule property under Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintiffs on 17.04.1968 by the Government was not valid and has not come into effect. The Trial Court has held that grama natham land cannot be assigned by an assignment order viz., Ex.A1. The Trial Court has also given a finding that the plaintiffs and the defendants have failed to prove their respective possession and rejected their respective claims of adverse possession.

8. Aggrieved by the