JUDGMENT :

The defendants are the appellants herein.

2. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.303 of 1993 before the District Munsif Court, Manaparai for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed. As against the same, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.50 of 2000 before Sub-Court, Trichirapalli. The learned Subordinate judge was pleased to set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. As against the same, the present second appeal has been filed by the defendants.

3. The plaintiff had contended that he is in possession of the suit schedule properties for more than 35 years by putting up a house in the said property. He further contended that he is in possession of the said property for more than the statutory period. The plaintiff further contended that the second defendant has issued a notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, under Exhibit A.16 contending that the suit schedule properties are a pound. Hence, the plaintiff prayed for a declaration of title and permanent injunction. The plaintiff further contended that the suit schedule properties are occupied natham and hence, the defendant authorities are not empowered to invoke the Land Encroachment Act.

4. The defendants filed a written statement contending that it is a pound maintained by the Government in the suit schedule properties and since the plaintiff has encroached upon the said pound, the defendants have issued a notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act under Exhibit A.16 in order to remove the encroachment. The defendants further contended that the property is under the administration of the Government and hence, the plaintiff is liable to hand over possession of the said properties.

5. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence, arrived at a finding that the suit schedule properties are not classified as pound, but dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has not established the date from which he is in adverse possession and the defendants filed on the side of the plaintiffs are not sufficient to prescribe title by adverse possession.

6. The First Appellate Court reversed the finding, holding that legal proceedings have been initiated as against the plaintiff's husband even in the year 1976. But, so far, no steps have been taken to physically evict the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court also found that for the past 37 years, the Government has not initiated any action to remove the encroachment. Since the plaintiff is a poor lady and she has acquired title by adverse possession, a decree was granted by the First Appellate Court. As against the same, the present second appeal has been filed.

7. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the reversing judgment of the lower Court in sustainable in law on the learned Sub-Judge has not appreciated the relevant evidence available on record to decide the issue and the provision of law are applicable to the facts.”

8. The learned Government Advocate for the appellants contended that the plaintiff cannot claim adverse possession over the suit schedule properties, since the plaintiff has not filed any document to the said effect. The learned Government Advocate for the appellants further contended that the documents filed on the side of the plaintiffs would not establish the adverse possession.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that admittedly, he is in possession of the suit schedule properties for more than 35 years. Exhibit A.19 is of the year 1963 and Exhibit A.20 is the year of 1971 and hence, the possession of the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties has been proved and prayed for the dismissal of the second appeal.

10. I have carefully considered the submissions on either side.

11. Admittedly, the suit schedule property is a Government poramboke. The plaintiff has claimed declaration of title and permanent in