JUDGMENT :

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 29.01.2018 passed in the appeal in A.S.No. 19 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 18.01.2010 passed in O.S.No. 51 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai.

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 09.06.2003 passed in the appeal in A.S.No. 111 of 2000 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 26.06.2000 passed in the suit in O.S.No. 48 of 1995 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram.

1. Since the issues involved in both the second appeals are connected, the appeals are taken up together and decided together.

S.A. (MD) No. 359 of 2022

2. The appellants are fishermen claiming to be residents of Lanjiyadi Singaravelan Nagar, Sozhiyankudi Village, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. They were not parties in the suit. They have filed the above appeal in representative capacity on behalf of the other fishermen residing in the said village. This Court had allowed the appellants to file the above appeal in the representative capacity. It is their case that the entire property called as Lanjiyadi Singaravelan Nagar is a poramboke land belonging to the Government and the fishermen in that area are residing therein by putting up small huts stocking their catch and selling fishes for nearly 100 years. The houses of fishermen are assessed to property tax by the Panchayat. They were also given electricity connection and identity cards showing their address as belonging to Lanjiyadi Singaravelan Nagar.

3. The respondents 2 and 3 herein filed a suit in O.S.No. 48 of 1995 on the file of the Sub-Court, Ramanathapuram as against the 7th respondent herein, namely, the Government of Tamil Nadu for a decree of declaration of title and for a consequential decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein, namely, the Government from interfering with their possession and enjoyment. Their claim was that the suit property measuring an extent of approximately 12 Acres belonged to one Nainar Mohammed, he having acquired a portion of it by sale deed dated 10.11.1954 and the remaining portion were his ancestral property. On his demise, the suit property devolved on his wife and children, namely, the respondents 2 and 3/plaintiffs and the fourth respondent/first defendant. Their further claim was that the suit properties were assigned to them by the Government and later, at the instance of the fishermen occupying the suit property, the Government cancelled the assignment orders.

4. The 7th respondent/Government represented by the District Collector, Ramanathapuram, filed a written statement. It was their case that the suit properties are poromboke lands belonging to the Government. The said properties were assigned to the respondents 2 and 3/plaintiffs and the respondents 3 to 6/defendants 1 to 4 on the basis of their applications for assignment on the ground that they are poor landless persons. Since the respondents 2 to 6 violated the conditions of assignment and let the fishermen use the lands assigned, the Government cancelled the assignment, after due enquiry.

5. Before the Trial Court, the respondents 2 and 3/plaintiffs examined PW-1 to PW-5 and marked Exs.A1 to A9 on their side. The Government examined DW-1 and marked Exs.B1 to B.14 on their side.

6. The Trial Court found that the respondents' claim for declaration of title, cannot be accepted only on the basis of sale deeds, which were marked as Exs.A7 and A8. The Trial Court further found that the respondents 2 and 3's father had applied for Ryotwari patta and the Settlement Officer had rejected the claim for Ryotwari Patta and the same has not been challenged. Subsequently, the plaintiffs admitting