JUDGMENT :

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

1. Aggrieved over the concurrent findings of the Courts below, granting permanent injunction against the appellant, the present second appeal is filed.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

2.1 The suit property originally belonged to one Vellaiyappa Pillai and he gave the same to one Mariappa Pillai on 25.01.1949. Later, one Livingston has purchased the property on 26.09.1994 and finally, the plaintiff has purchased the suit property from the said Livingston. Originally, the survey number was 376/1. Now, the re-survey number is 565/1. The plaintiff is running a prayer hall in the suit property bearing Door No. 1/137E. Besides, he also pays taxes and has also given requisition for issuance of patta. When the matter stood thus, the first respondent, in order to give trouble to the plaintiff's community, issued a notice dated 29.04.2002, stating that the suit property is a Government property and the plaintiff has encroached the same. Hence, the suit has been filed.

2.2 Denying the entire allegations, it is the contention of the first respondent that the suit is not maintainable without impleading the Government. The suit property is a poramboke land vested with the Government of Tamil Nadu. Hence, the State is a necessary party. The plaintiff has no right or title over the said property. He is only an encroacher. He can be removed under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Hence, the prayer sought by the plaintiff is null and void and the same is not maintainable.

2.3 Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following three issues:

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

3. To what other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to?”

2.4 On the side of the plaintiff, PW-1 examined Ex.A1 to A.10 and on the side of the defendants, DW-1 examined Exs.D1 to D.6.

2.5 Based on the evidences, the trial Court negatived the prayer of declaration sought against the resolution passed by the panchayat, however, granted permanent injunction. The first appellate Court also confirmed the findings of the trial Court. As against which, the present appeal is filed.

3. While admitting the second appeal, the following questions of law were framed:

“1. Whether the Courts below are right in granting relief of injunction prayed by the plaintiff, without seeking declaration of title, especially when his ownership is disputed by the defendant and in the absence of evidence to show that the plaintiff is in legal possession over the extent of land mentioned in the plaint scheduled?

2. Whether the courts below are right in granting relief of injunction after holding that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of declaration to declare the resolution passed by the first defendant as null and void?”

4. In addition to the above, the following question of law is framed today:

“Whether the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to decide the issue as to the encroachment?”

5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second and third respondents.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the entire suit property is a poramboke land vested with the Government. The plaintiff has no right whatsoever and it is only the Government property. The plaintiff is a mere encroacher in the Government property. Therefore, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the property.

7. The Courts below having found that the property is a Government property, ought not to have granted permanent injunction against the panchayat which has acted as per the direction of the Commissioner of Panchayat to remove the encroachment. Hence, it is his submission that the Courts below have passed a decree which is erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside.

8. Despite the name printed, there no appearance on the side of