JUDGMENT :

M. Govindaraj, J.

1. The above two appeals have been preferred against the decree and judgment passed in O.S. No. 37 of 1989 and O.S. No. 43 of 1989 dated 21.03.1994 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are called as per their litigative status in the Suit.

The defendant is the appellant in both the appeals. The plaintiff filed a Suit for declaration declaring the Suit property belonged to the plaintiff and consequently, for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and for direction against the defendant to issue Ryotwari Patta to the plaintiff in respect of the Suit property. In both the Suits, the Suit properties are agricultural properties situated in S. No. 40/1, Part in Kattu Paramakudi Village, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, measuring an extent of 3 Acres 15 Cents and 10 Acres and 58 Cents respectively.

3. According to the plaintiff, the Suit properties are lying south of River Vaigai, which was a part of erstwhile Ramnad Zamin. The long stretch commencing on the west from the channel and stretching up to Uprapuli Village in the east was separately treated under the name of Athu Padugai. This Athu Padugai block of land was granted on permanent cowle by Rajah of Ramanathapuram, land holder of the Zamin under cowle deed dated 07.02.1865 to one Ayyathurai Pillai, a local vakil of Paramakudi. The said Ayyathurai Pillai sold a part of the lands to Ponnusamy Thevar, the great grandfather of the plaintiff. From Ponnusamy Thevar, the property ultimately vested in Velusamy Thevar called Mappillai Samy Thevar. The said Velusamy Thevar, in and by his WILL dated 08.09.1924 bequeathed all his properties to the plaintiff's mother R. Muthathal Nachiar. The said Muthathal Nachiar left a WILL on 09.06.1959. By virtue of the WILL, the plaintiff derived title to the properties as an absolute owner. Muthathal Nachiar was the daughter of the Zamin Family of Ramnad and wife of K.S.R. Dasarad Zamindhar of Palayampatty and the properties were in her possession. The property in her possession were entered as "Estate" are on "No. 1 Patta" in her name in accordance with the practice in such families and estates. The Suit properties and its adjoining properties lying as a single block were assigned Paimash numbers 3/2, 4/1, 6/1, 6/2, 7 to 9, 10/1 and 10/2. Except Paimash numbers 4/2 and 5, which were granted to private individuals, the other lands were entered in separate holdings of the Zamin family. During the survey and settlement, the Manager of the Estate, by negligence, omitted to apply for and obtain Ryotwari Patta. The said Muthathal Nachiar died in 1961 and the plaintiff became entitled to the properties on the basis of the WILL of his mother. When he made enquiries and investigated the properties, it was found that the properties were registered as "assessed waste land". That is, the lands were cultivable and assessable and not poramboke. The plaintiff took steps for obtaining Ryotwari Patta. However, the Director of Settlements though found title in favour of the plaintiff, declined to issue patta on the grounds of delay and recommended the case for patta outside the scope of the Act, by his order dated 30.06.1970. The plaintiff made application for patta outside the scope of The Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948) (Shortly "the Act"). He voluntarily gave up the his claim for the portion of the land in the occupation of Municipality, as the plaintiff found that the portion had already been gifted to Municipality and two other portions had also been similarly granted to one Karuppiah Pillai and Meenakshi Ammal. One Sikkandar and his brother's son Musafar Gani made a rival claim for a small portion in the western side. The Revenue Department unwilling to go into the anterior title directed the plaintiff to establish his title before the Civil Court, by the order of Revenue Div