JUDGMENT :

1. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgement and decree dated 06.08.2009 in A.S.No.9 of 2009 of the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge at Nagapattinam confirming the judgment and Decree dated 08.04.2008 in O.S.No.284 of 2000 on the file of the Court of District Munsif at Nagapatinam.

2. The Appellant is the plaintiff in the suit.

3. The short facts of the plaintiff case are as follows:-

The suit property is a part of poramboke property situated in survey No. 22/2 of Puthur, Anthanampettai, Nagapattinam taluk and which had a total extent of 1.92 acres. The said survey number has been sub-divided into 22/2, 22/5 A, 5 C, 5 D, 22/6 and 22/7. The survey No.22/2 was allotted to the enjoyment of the Jayaveera Anjaneyar Temple. The property in survey No.22/6 was in enjoyment of the father of the plaintiff as its lessee. The defendant’s father requested permission from the father of the plaintiff a small portion to build a house for him. Accordingly defendant’s father was permitted to build a house in the site measuring about 26’ x 18’ feet and the defendant and his father are in enjoyment of the same. Subsequently Government gave patta for 8 cents in survey No.22/5 C to the defendant’s father. In the said property, the defendant built a house and later he died. Since the defendant’s father had built a house in the land allotted to him through patta, plaintiff revoked the permission and requested to give back the suit property. But the defendant had refused to hand over the same. So this suit is filed for recovery of possession.

4. A short facts of the written statement of the defendant are as under:

82 cents in survey No.22/6 has been vested with the government in view of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 30/1963 which came into force on 24/10/1969. The survey No.22/2 does not belong to the Jayaveera Anjaneyar Temple and hence there is no lease agreement in favour of the plaintiff. So it is false to state that the plaintiff and his father were in enjoyment of the suit property from the year 1933. It is also equally false to state that the plaintiff’s father had given permission to the defendant’s father to build a house. Actually this defendant’s grandfather viz., Velayutha Nadar was in enjoyment of the property before 100 years by putting up a hut there. Since the defendant’s grandfather was a coolie worker, he was staying there; the house tax assessment and electricity bill connection stood in his name. The defendant was in continuous enjoyment of the suit property. Besides he was given with patta for 8 cents in survey No.22/5 C. Therefore, there is no cause of action for the suit and hence this suit should be dismissed.

5. On the side of the plaintiff one witness was examined and Exs.A1 to A30 were marked. On the side of the defendant one witness was examined as DW.1 and Exs. D1 to D5 were marked.

6. After the trial, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved over the same the plaintiff filed a First Appeal and the First Appeal was also dismissed. Hence the plaintiff has filed this Second Appeal and it has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

“1.Whether the courts below have given a perverse finding that the plaintiff has not proved the possession of the suit property by the defendant to be a permissive one, in the light of the admission made by D.W.1, which runs contra to the plea taken in the written statement?

2. Whether the finding of the courts below that the plaintiff is not a lessee in respect of the suit property to non-suit the plaintiff is perverse? ”

7. The suit property is an extent of 468 sq.ft, in survey No.22/6. The measurement of the suit property is shown as 26 ft on the East-West and 18 ft on the North-South. The appellant/plaintiff admits that the suit property is a government poramboke.

8. According to the plaintiff, the larger survey No.22/2 has been sub divided into several survey Numbers and in the sub divided survey No.22