JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal preferred under Section 100 of CPC against the decree and judgment dated 04.02.2019 of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Vellore in AS.No.67/2017 confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2017 of the learned Principal District Munsif, Vellore in OS.No.373/2008.)

1. The plaintiff is the appellant in the present Second Appeal. As against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below, the plaintiff who has filed the suit in OS.No.373/2018, has preferred the above appeal.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property, namely, an extent of 39 cents out of 60 cents in S.No.129 in Kilvallam Village in Vellore Taluk, with reference to specific boundaries, is a property classified as “thoppu poramboke” belonging to the State Government. Based on the exclusive possession, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit for permanent injunction as against defendants 1, 2 and 7 to 13 restraining them from interfering with their possession and for permanent injunction restraining defendants 3 to 6 from evicting the plaintiff otherwise than due process of law.

3. The suit was contested by the 2nd defendant contending that the suit property is not a thoppu poramboke land, but a channel poramboke, which is not in the possession of the plaintiff. It is stated by the 10th defendant in the written statement that the 10th defendant is in possession and enjoyment of an extent of 10 cents of poramboke land adjoining her property and that she had also prescribed title by adverse possession as against the Government or anyone. It is further stated that the Government is issuing ‘B’ Memo as the plaintiff has raised rosewood trees, vengai trees, mango trees and coconut tress etc.

4. The 2nd defendant in his written statement stated that the plaintiff was never in possession of the property by her own showing that she had paid kist upto 1995 only. It is also contended by the 2nd defendant that the suit property is a channel poramboke and that it was classified as such in all the revenue records. The possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff is specifically disputed by the 2nd defendant. It is contended by the 2nd defendant that due to ill-will against defendants 1 and 2, the suit has been laid against them. The 2nd defendant was the then President of Kilvallam Village/3rd defendant herein. Therefore, the written statement filed by the 2nd defendant appears to be on behalf of defendants 2 and 3.

5. The Trial Court, after considering the pleadings and evidence found that the plaintiff has not proved her possession. Since the revenue officials were sending notices to one Kullammal, mother of the plaintiff, under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, it is found by the Trial Court that the plaintiff has not proved her possession beyond 1995. Though it is admitted that the plaintiff is having her land adjacent to the suit property, the Trial Court specifically rendered a finding that the plaintiff has not proved her possession or enjoyment over the suit property at the time of filing the suit. Since the suit property is a water body classified as channel poramboke, the Trial Court found that the plaintiff is not entitled to the equitable relief of permanent injunction as against the defendants. The Trial Court also directed to remove the encroachments and obstructions in the channel situate in S.No.129.

6. Aggrieved by the findings of the Trial Court, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in AS.No.67/2017 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Vellore. The Lower Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court holding that though the possession of the plaintiff’ was not established by documents as the documents Exs.A1 to A23 which are only proceedings initiated against the plaintiff’s mother till 1988. The other documents are not relating to suit property.

7. The Lower Appellate Court specifically found that the documents Exs.A1 to A23 establishes the fact t