JUDGMENT T.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J. 1. The appeal filed by the defendant - the State of Kerala arises out of a suit filed by the Nellithanam Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd., represented by its Managing Director Dr. M. K. Antony for declaration of title to and possession of the plaint properties covering an extent of 174 acres and 21 cents in Pallivasal pakuthy and to compel the defendant to register the land in favour of the plaintiff. The suit was decreed by the court below. The facts which are stated below are not disputed between the parties. Dr. M. K. Antony filed an application, Ext. P-1, dated 24-2-1937 (13-7-1112) for getting registry of 150 acres from Survey No. 19/1 of Pallivasal pakuthy puduval land belonging to the State in Form A prescribed by the Cardamom Rules dated the 30th September, 1935, framed by the Travancore Government under S.7 of the Land Assignment Act, III of 1097. After the preliminary enquiry contemplated in R.5 of the Cardamom Rules the application was admitted by the Commissioner, Devicolam, on 29-4-1937 (17-9-1112). Notices under R.6 were published and no objections were received and the Tahsildar, Devicolam, forwarded the records to the Commissioner, Devicolam, for further action on 11-7-1937 (2-12-1112). In pursuance to the application dated 12-1-1938 filed by Dr. M. K. Antony praying for permission to enter on 50 acres out of the 150 acres included in Ext. P.1 the Commissioner, Devicolam, granted the permission as evidenced by Ext. P.9 dated 21-3-1938 (8-8-1113). On actual survey the area applied for in Ext. P.1 by Dr. Antony was found to be 224 acres 21 cents. Dr. Antony filed Ext. P.10 petition dated 6-4-1938 (24-8-1113) that the excess area of 74 acres and 21 cents may also be registered to him. The initial deposits to be made for the lands applied for under Exts. P.1 and P. 10 were also deposited by Dr. Antony. The Commissioner, Devicolam, in his order dated 3-6-1938 directed that the excess area of 74 acres 21 cents should be reserved as tharisu lands with a view to satisfy other applicants and directed the completion of the registry proceedings in respect of 150 acres alone included in Ext. P.1. Dr. M. K. Antony filed an appeal against the decision of the Commissioner, Devicolam, before the Land Revenue and Income Tax Commission, Trivandrum, who by his order Ext. P.1. Dr. M. K. Antony filed an appeal against the decision of the Commissioner, Devicolam, before the Land Revenue and Income Tax Commission, Trivandrum, who by his order Ext. P.15 dated 22-6-1939 directed steps to be taken in accordance with the rules for the registry of 74 acres 21 cents as well. In the meanwhile, Dr. M. K. Antony, inspite of Ext. P.9, encroached on the entire are of 224 acres and 21 cents and therefore proceedings under the Travancore Land Conservancy Act were taken against Dr. M. K. Antony for evicting him from 174 acres and 21 cents. This resulted in the order Ext. D.2 dated 14-11-1945 (29-3-1121) by the Tahsildar, Devicolam, directing the eviction of Dr. Antony and also imposing fine, prohibitory assessment etc. The Government of Travancore passed Ext. D.6 proceedings on 13-6-1942 on Ext. P.1 application directing the registry of only 50 acres out of the total area of 274 acres and 21 cents on payment of tharavila at Rs. 60/- per acre and the appropriate assessment and rejected the prayer in respect of the registry of the remaining area. Subsequent to Ext. D.2 proceedings, Dr. M. K. Antony filed Ext. D.4 application before the Taluk Office, Devicolam, for getting the plaint property 174 acres 21 cents on kuthakapattom for a period of 12 years. This prayer was repeated by him in Ext. D.5 dated 15-4-1946 (2-9-1121) another application made before the Tahsildar, Devicolam. In spite of these applications the prayer of Dr. Antony was rejected and it is the contention of the State that Dr. Antony was evicted from 174 acres 21 cents of land. The plaintiff's contention is that Exts. P.1 and P.10 applications were made by Dr. M. K. Antony on behalf of and for the benefit of the plaintiff and the various proceedings conducted by the Revenue authorities on behalf of the State will evidence that there was a completed contract to assign 174 acres 21 cents in favour of Dr. M. K. Antony or at least an agreement to assign in his favour and which will enure to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is therefore entitled to get a decree compelling the State to assign the plaint property to the plaintiff. M. K. Antony or at least an agreement to assign in his favour and which will enure to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is therefore entitled to get a decree compelling the State to assign the plaint property to the plaintiff. Since there is an agreement on the part of the Government to assign these lands enuring to the benefit of the plaintiff it is further contended for the plaintiff that the possession of these lands by the plaintiff is not unauthorised and therefore the proceedings under the Travancore Land Conservancy Act cannot be sustained. 2. The main question that has to be decided in his appeal is whether there was any completed contract of assignment between the plaintiff and the State in respect of the plaint property. The effect of Exts. P.1 and P. 10 is an offer on the part of Dr. M. K. Antony to get registry of 224 acres 21 cents of lands situated within the cardamom reserve in Pallivasal pakuthy. Ext. P.1 application was made in accordance with R.4 of the Cardamom Rules in Form A prescribed by the Rules with the necessary particulars and the sketch and the initial deposit of Rs. 5/- per acre was also made. As a result of certain enquiries conducted by the Revenue authorities the Commissioner, Devicolam, admitted the application. After the application is admitted and Commissioner takes the view that the land is assignable notices have to be published in accordance with R.10 and 11 of the Puduval Rules dated 19-4-1935. The claims and objections received in pursuance to those notices should be enquired into and disposed of by the Commissioner. After the Commissioner comes to the conclusion as a result of such enquiry that the land is assignable without auction the formalities prescribed in R.7 and 8 of the Cardamom Rules will have to be followed. R.8 of the Cardamom Rules prescribes that the Commissioner, Devicolam, shall pass the preliminary order of registry if the area applied for is 25 acres or below or forward the records to the Land Revenue and Income Tax Commissioner in other cases with his recommendation and the Land Revenue and the Income Tax Commissioner shall pass the order in case the land applied for is 50 acres or below and submit the records for the orders of Government in respect of all other applications. 3. Since the request of Dr. 3. Since the request of Dr. Antony in Exts. P.1 and P.10 was for getting registry of 224 acres and 21 cents the competent authority who can pass the preliminary order for registry is only the Government to whom the application has to be forwarded with the recommendation of the Commissioner, Devicolam, and also the Land Revenue and Income Tax Commissioner, Trivandrum. Ext. D.6 the order passed by the Government shows that Ext. P. 1 application was considered by the Government and the Government out of the property comprised in Ext. P.1 allowed registry of 50 acres refusing registry in respect of the plaint property. In the face of Ext. D.6 we are not in a position to appreciate the contention of the appellant that there was either a concluded contract between the State and Dr. M. K. Antony to assign the plaint property to him or that there is an agreement to assign. All the preliminary steps taken by the Subordinate Revenue authorities to enable the Government to come to a decision as to whether the area applied for registry is assignable cannot constitute an agreement on the part of the State to assign the property to Dr. M. K. Antony. If the authority competent to order registry is satisfied that there is no objection in assigning the land in favour of the applicant the Rules contemplate the passing of a preliminary order for registry by that authority. Even such an order as per the Rules has only the force of an executory contract. The applicant has to perfect the right intended to be conferred on him under the contract by prompt payment of the tharavila or ground value within the time prescribed by the Rules. R.10 of the Cardamom Rules requires the applicant to pay the first instalment of the tharavila and to execute an agreement undertaking to pay the remaining instalments as and when they fall due. R.10 also enables the State to cancel the preliminary order for registry if the applicant commits default in the payment of any instalment. Thus there can be no doubt that the contract for registry could be completed only with the payment of the entire amount of the tharavila. R.10 also enables the State to cancel the preliminary order for registry if the applicant commits default in the payment of any instalment. Thus there can be no doubt that the contract for registry could be completed only with the payment of the entire amount of the tharavila. In Kunjen Thampi v. The Dewan of Travancore 2 TLT 808 it was ruled that without an order for registry of the land the mere deposit of tharavila will not confer any right on the applicant to get the land assigned in his favour. In Vallinayagom Pillai v. The Dewan of Travancore 9 TLT 273 it was decided that the deposit of a sum of money with an application for registry has not the effect of creating a completed agreement for the assignment of the land and that the title in respect of the land at the disposal of the State passes to the applicant only on the completion of the registry. In the light of the above, the only inference that is possible in this case is that there was no completed contract between Dr. Antony and the State to assign the plaint property to him. Secondly, there is also no agreement between the State and Dr. Antony by which the State agreed to assign the plaint property to Dr. Antony. The attempt of the plaintiff's advocate to spin out a case of agreement to assign between the State and Dr. Antony on the basis of certain preliminary proceedings conducted by the Revenue Authorities on the basis of Exts. P.1 and P. 10 to say the least is futile. If so, the prayer of the plaintiff for a declaration of title and possession cannot stand. By Ext. D.6 order passed by the Government the competent authority under R.10 to deal with the application refused to accept the offer of Dr. M. K. Antony for getting registry of 224 acres 21 cents. In this view, the plaintiff's suit has only to be dismissed. 4. The learned Subordinate Judge seems to think that in view of the completion of the steps by the subordinate Revenue authorities under R.4 to 7 and the payment of the initial deposit in pursuance to the applications Exts. P.1 and P.10 confer a right on Dr. Antony to compel the State to assign the plaint property to him. This view cannot legally stand and the finding is erroneous. P.1 and P.10 confer a right on Dr. Antony to compel the State to assign the plaint property to him. This view cannot legally stand and the finding is erroneous. The next contention of the plaintiff that Ext. P.1 and P.10 applications were made by Dr. M. K. Antony on behalf of the plaintiff company cannot also be accepted. There is nothing in Exts. P.1 and P. 10 to indicate that the applications were made by Dr. M.K. Antony on behalf of the plaintiff company. These applications show that they were made by Dr. M. K. Antony only on his own behalf. R.5 of the Cardamom Rules enjoin that in connection with an application made under R.4 the Commissioner, Devicolam, shall enquire into the financial position of the applicant and shall satisfy himself that the application is bona fide, that it comes from a person of competence, that it is not made for purposes of speculation and R.20 provides that no land shall be assigned under the Cardamom Rules to any person who is not a born subject of His Highness the Maha Raja except with the special sanction of Government. There was therefore a duty enjoined on the part of the Revenue authorities or the Government competent to sanction registry to know the financial position and the competence of the applicant. The plaintiff is not competent to enforce the terms of the contract between Dr. Antony and the State even if there was any concluded contract. Since it is not alleged that the State was aware that Exts. P.1 and P. 10 were made by Dr. Antony on behalf of the plaintiff. If really Exts. P.1 and P. 10 had been made by Dr. M, K. Antony on behalf of the company the identity of the applicant would have to be disclosed in those applications. In Exts. D.4 and D.5 applications filed by Dr. M. K. Antony for getting 174 acres 21 cents on kuthakapattom there was no case that the property was in the possession of the plaintiff company. The allegation was that Dr. M. K. Antony was in possession of the property that he had cultivated the lands with cardamom crop and that he should not be evicted and that land should be given to him on kuthakapattom. Subsequent to the passing of Ext. D.6 order there were repeated applications from Dr. Antony to review Ext. The allegation was that Dr. M. K. Antony was in possession of the property that he had cultivated the lands with cardamom crop and that he should not be evicted and that land should be given to him on kuthakapattom. Subsequent to the passing of Ext. D.6 order there were repeated applications from Dr. Antony to review Ext. D.6 and to have the properties registered in his name. These petitions also were rejected by the Government by orders dated 16-1-1954, 12-4-1955 and 24-1-1957. There is nothing to show that in these petitions at least he stated that Exts. P1 and P. 10 petitions were made by him on behalf of the plaintiff company. On 12-5-1955 an application was made on behalf of the plaintiff company by Dr. M. K. Antony who happened to be the Managing Director of the Company then and by K. J. Kuncheria another Director of the Company for the registry of 174.21 acres in the name of the company. This petition was for the registry of 174.21 acres in the name of the company. This petition was dismissed by Exts. P.32 order dated January 1957 and a subsequent petition filed by the same parties was rejected by Ext. P.31 order dated 11-10-1958. In the light of these petitions, we cannot sustain the finding of the learned Judge that Exts. P.1 and P.10 were filed by Dr. M. K. Antony on behalf of the plaintiff. In view of the above findings, it is unnecessary to resolve the dispute between the parties whether as a result of the proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act the plaintiff was evicted by the State, the State contending that the properties are in their possession in view of the eviction and the plaintiff has been evicted the plaintiff contending otherwise. There is no prayer in the plaint to cancel the proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act or based on possession. Further since the properties involved in the suit belong to the State even assuming that the possession is with the plaintiff he cannot get any relief on the basis of that possession alone against the State who is the real owner of the property. In the result, the judgment and decree of the lower court are set aside and the appeal allowed dismissing the suit with costs throughout.