Judgment :- 1. The defendant Panchayat represented by its Executive Officer, is the appellant in this Second Appeal. The suit is for a permanent injunction restraining the Panchayat from evicting the plaintiffs from the suit property. The suit property is 7.83 acres in R. S. No. 359/1A of Mattool Village. There is a specific averment in the plaint that the properties described in Schedules A and B form a portion of a vast area of munambu poramboke the total extent of which is 423.35 acres in the same survey number. This averment in the plaint is not denied in the written statement According to the plaintiffs 7.17 acres of land described in the A schedule and 66 cents of land mentioned in the B schedule in Sy. No.359/IA form part of a larger area of Government poramboke which had been in the possession of the plaintiffs and their predecessors for over 100 years under a cowl granted by the Government of Madras. The suit is occasioned on account of a threat by the Panchayat to dispossess the petitioners on the basis that the land vests in the Panchayat. The defendant-panchayat has filed a written statement contending that the land mentioned in the plaint vests in the Panchayat by virtue of S.82 of the Kerala Panchayats Act and the Panchayat is entitled to evict the plaintiffs from the suit property in their occupation. 2. Both the courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiffs are in possession of the land in question. It is also found that the defendant-Pancbayat has no title to evict the plaintiffs who are found to be in occupation of the land. It is against this that the Panchayat has come up in Second Appeal. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant Sri. Govinda Bharathan points out that the land in question is a river-poramboke which would vest in the Panchayat by virtue of the provisions of S.82 of the Kerala Panchayats Act. S.82 reads as follows: "82. Vesting of water course, springs, reservoirs, etc. in Pachayats.-(1) All public water course (other than rivers passing through more areas than the Panchayat area which the Government may, by notification in the gazette, specify) springs, reservoirs, tanks, cisterns, fountains, wells, kappus. S.82 reads as follows: "82. Vesting of water course, springs, reservoirs, etc. in Pachayats.-(1) All public water course (other than rivers passing through more areas than the Panchayat area which the Government may, by notification in the gazette, specify) springs, reservoirs, tanks, cisterns, fountains, wells, kappus. chals, stand pipes) and other water-works (including those used by the public to such an extent as to give a prescriptive right to their use) whether existing at the commencement of this Act or afterwards made, laid or erected and whether made, laid, or erected at the cost of the Panchayat or otherwise, and also any adjacent land (not being private property) appertaining thereto shall stand transferred to, and vest in, the Panchayat." On the finding of possession of the land by the plaintiffs, the burden is entirely on the defendant Panchayat to show their title to evict the persons in possession. The Panchayat is relying on S.82 as investing it with title to evict the plaintiffs who are in possession of the disputed land. Under S.82, all public water courses, springs, reservoirs etc. mentioned in the section statutorily vest in the Panchayat. The defendant has not shown by any evidence in this case that the suit-land is a public water course of the nature mentioned in S.82 or adjacent land appertaining thereto As a matter of fact it is a poramboke land is not in dispute in this suit. 4. Under S.4 (1) of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, poramboke shall mean and include Government land under S 3 (1) or (2) of the Act used or reserved for public purposes or for the communal use of villagers including the beds and banks of rivers irrigation and drainage channels, traffic canals tanks, lakes, backwaters and water courses. Under S.3 (1) of the Act beds and banks of rivers are declared as the property of the Government. A poramboke land therefore is land vested in the Government The defendant Panchayat has produced Exts. B 50 and B 51. Ext. B 51 dated 25-3-1962 is a certified copy of the proceedings of the Collector of Cannanore as per which an approved list of lands vested in the Panchayat under S 82 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, was directed to be delivered to the Panchayat The list itself is not before court. B 50 and B 51. Ext. B 51 dated 25-3-1962 is a certified copy of the proceedings of the Collector of Cannanore as per which an approved list of lands vested in the Panchayat under S 82 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, was directed to be delivered to the Panchayat The list itself is not before court. It is only the proceedings of the Collector as per which the Tahsildars are requested to deliver the lists to the Panchayats concerned. Ext. B 50 dated 19-10-1968 makes it clear that R. S. No. 359/1A of Mattool Village is reserved as a poramboke land. As per this order of Government all major rivers are declared as vested in the Government and R.S 359/1A is declared as a river poramboke relating to a major river namely the Baliapattam river vested in the Government. Ext B 50 would clearly show that S.82 of the Panchayats Act can have no application in respect of land appertaining to the Baliapattam river vested in the Government under S.3 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. On the wording of S.82 itself, it is only such of the water courses as are mentioned therein, that would vest in the Panchayat. A major river such as the Baliapattam river does not fall under S.82. It is not shown by what other process of law the land involved in the suit which is a river poramboke has vested in the Panchayat. The plaintiffs are admittedly in possession of the land involved in the suit. It is only a person with better title who will be entitled to evict the plaintiffs, from the suit property. The defendant has not shown any title to evict the plaintiffs from the plaint schedule properties. 5. It is submitted by Counsel for the appellant that the plaintiffs had confined their relief for an injunction to restrain the Panchayat from illegally evicting them from the suit property. As earlier stated the burden is on the defendant-panchayat to prove its title to evict the plaintiffs from the lands. The defendant has not made out its title to evict the plaintiffs from the plaint schedule property. Under these circumstances, any process of eviction that the panchayat may resort to will only be a colourable exercise of its power and the prayer in the plaint will certainly include a relief of injunction against such eviction. The defendant has not made out its title to evict the plaintiffs from the plaint schedule property. Under these circumstances, any process of eviction that the panchayat may resort to will only be a colourable exercise of its power and the prayer in the plaint will certainly include a relief of injunction against such eviction. I do not find any ground for interference in Second Appeal. The Second Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Dismissed.