Judgment :- Defendant-State of Tamil Nadu represented by the District Collector, Tiruchirapalli, is the appellant in this second appeal. Plaintiff, respondent herein, filed O.S. No.200 of 1978, on the file of the District Munsif's Court Kulithalai, for a declaration that they are the absolute owners of the suit treasure, namely, 360 one Rupee coins of Queen Victoria era., and for costs of the suit. 2. Material averments in the plaint are as follows :- 360 One rupee coins of the era of Queen Victoria were found by the first plaintiff on 15-12-75, right in the middle of the ancestral family house, which belonged in common to him and his senior paternal uncle's grandson, 2nd plaintiff in the suit. Plaintiffs claim that they are the owners of the said property. The plaintiffs would say that they and their ancestors had been very ancient residents of the village of Inam Pudur in Manapparai Taluk. They had their very ancient ancestral house in the village Natham in S.F. No. 74. The plaintiffs have said that the ancestral house is very ancient one, well enclosed by a compound wall on all the four sides, and none else can have any access to the house. According to them, their common ancestors had hidden the Treasure in the suit property, right in the middle portion of the ancestral house and had passed on the fact to their descendants. Only because of this their sons and grandsons who had divided all other properties had postponed the actual division of the ancestral house and had been keeping and treating and enjoying the same as common and have been safeguarding the Treasure. As such the Treasure and the site are the exclusive and absolute property of the plaintiffs and had been in their own exclusive possession and adverse to one and all including the Government. The compound wall enclosing it has been in existence throughout. It has also been the subject of inspection verification by the officers of the Revenue Department even in proceedings under the Treasure Trove Act. It is further said that in the usual course of their enjoyment, the plaintiffs decided to reconstruct their house, and during the course of the same and while digging the foundation found and removed the coins well preserved in a mudpot on 15-12-1975. It is further said that in the usual course of their enjoyment, the plaintiffs decided to reconstruct their house, and during the course of the same and while digging the foundation found and removed the coins well preserved in a mudpot on 15-12-1975. Proceedings under the Treasure Trove Act had been taken which had ultimately ended in a direction to the plaintiffs to file the present suit. It is said that except the plaintiffs none else had made any claim and. Therefore, the Government alone was made a party. Cause of action has arisen from 10-10-1977 and from 7-12-1977, the date of the revised order of the defendant and from 7-12-1977 when the plaintiffs got the order directing the plaintiffs to file a suit in regard to the suit property, namely, Treasure hidden in the ancestral property. 3. In the written statement filed by the defendant, the State admits that 360 Silver coins in a mud pot were found and taken by Gurunathan Chettiar (Second Plaintiff) and the same were equally divided between the plaintiffs. Without giving notice to the Tahsildar or other officials, about the find of the Treasure, they divided the treasure in equal shares. Out of the 360 coins, they have sold 110 coins, and after that, 250 coins were seized from them. In exercise of the powers conferred on him, necessary order dated 12-10-1977 was passed by the Additional Personal Assistant to the Collector, to establish the plaintiffs' right in a Civil Court within one month from the date of receipt of the order. It is said that since the plaintiffs did not file a suit within one month, orders were passed on 29-12-1977, treating the Treasure as ownerless under Section 9 of the Treasure Trove Act. Plaintiffs preferred an appeal to Board. The Board set aside the order and directed the Collector to take necessary evidence. The Collector, after holding such enquiry, directed the plaintiffs to institute a suit and get a declaration of their right. According to the defendant-State, merely because the coins were recovered from their compound, it does not follow that the plaintiffs are the owners of the Treasure. According to the defendant, plaintiffs are not the owners of the property (Treasure). The Collector, after holding such enquiry, directed the plaintiffs to institute a suit and get a declaration of their right. According to the defendant-State, merely because the coins were recovered from their compound, it does not follow that the plaintiffs are the owners of the Treasure. According to the defendant, plaintiffs are not the owners of the property (Treasure). It is said that the plaintiffs ought to have given information about the find of the Treasure, and since they have not done so, they are liable to be punished under Section 20 of the Treasure Trove Act. It is further said that enquiry revealed that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the Treasure and, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. Trial Court, after taking evidence, came to the conclusion that the suit is not maintainable on the ground that the plaintiffs have not proved that they are the owners of the Treasure and also for the reason that they have not given notice as required under Section 4 of the Act as finders of Treasure which now vests with the Government under Section 20 of the Act. 5. Against the judgment, plaintiffs preferred A.S. No. 38 of 1980, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Karur. The Lower Appellate Court reversed the decision and held that the plaintiffs are the owners of the Treasure and decreed the suit. The lower appellate Court also found that there was no necessity for the issuance of a notice under Section 80, C.P.C. It was further held that the suit was instituted within one month from the date of intimation from the Collector to institute the suit. The lower appellate Court was of the view that since the ownership over the property is not disputed, everything that is kept or hidden within the four corners or four walls of the house also belongs to the plaintiffs. It is against the said decision, this second appeal has been preferred by the State. 6. The lower appellate Court was of the view that since the ownership over the property is not disputed, everything that is kept or hidden within the four corners or four walls of the house also belongs to the plaintiffs. It is against the said decision, this second appeal has been preferred by the State. 6. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, the following substantial question of law was raised for consideration : "Whether the plaintiffs against whom orders have been passed under Sections 8, 9 and 17 of the Indian Treasure Trove Act can file a suit for a mere declaration that the treasure trove belongs to them, with a prayer to set aside the above orders passed by the authorities?" 7. Before going to the merits of the case, we have to take note of certain averments made in the plaint. It is stated in the plaint by the plaintiffs that a Treasure Trove of 360 Silver coths of the era of Queen Victoria were found by the first plaintiff on 15-12-1975 right in the middle of their ancestral family house, and that the same was hidden by their forefathers and the plaintiffs had also knowledge that these coins were hidden underneath their house, and that was the reason why the house was not partitioned. This allegation in the plaint is not denied in the written statement. On this background, we have to consider how far the provisions of the Treasure Trove Act are applicable to the facts of this case and whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any relief sought for. 8. The Treasure Trove Act, 1878 (Act 6 of 1878) defines 'Treasure thus : "Treasure" means anything of value exceeding rupees ten, or of any value if it is of historical or archeological interest having been in existence for not less than one hundred years, hidden or embedded, in the soil, or in anything affixed thereto, and includes uncut diamonds, or other valuable minerals found on the surface of the soil." 9. Section 4 of the Act says that if any person finds a Treasure, he shall inform the Collector of the District, about the same, by a notice in writing. But who is 'finder' is not defined in the Act. Section 4 of the Act says that if any person finds a Treasure, he shall inform the Collector of the District, about the same, by a notice in writing. But who is 'finder' is not defined in the Act. For the purpose of disposing of this Second Appeal, we have to consider the meanings of the words 'Treasure' and 'Finder', and then only the question will arise whether the State is entitled to proceed under the provisions of this Act. 10. In one of the earliest decisions of this Court reported in 1908 (31) ILR(Mad) 397 , their Lordships held that property not hidden is not treasure trove and is not governed by the provisions of the Act. Unclaimed articles not found hidden are the property of the person on whose land they are found unless they are found in a public place, in which case they belong to the finder. While dismissing the matter, their Lordships said thus : ".... In India, as pointed out by Lord Brougham in Mayor of Lyons v. East India Company, the assumption of sovereignity by the crown would not necessarily introduce this branch of the prerogative, but it appears from the proclamation of the Governor General in Council of 3rd October, 1777 printed in Colebrokk's Bengal Regulations, Vol. 3, p. 346, that 'the right which Government possesses to hidden treasure, wherever it may be discovered' had been asserted before that time, and Government subsequently proceeded to deal with the disposal of the hidden treasure by regulations which have now been superseded by the Indian Treasure Trove Act, VI of 1878. This Act, as well as the preceding regulations, deal only with hidden treasure, thus following English law, and Section 3 of the Act defines treasure as "anything of value hidden in the soil or in anything affixed thereto". Hindu Law also recognised the rights of Government in unclaimed property (Nidhi), apparently, whether it had been hidden or not. In the Mayukha, Chap. VII, Para 10, Yajnavalkya is cited as saying 'let the King obtaining unclaimed property (Nidhi) give half to Brahmins, but a learned Brahmin may keep the whole for he is lord of all. And the king shall receive a sixth part of unclaimed property occupied by any other person'. In case of its being discovered without any information from the finder, he must be made to pay a fine as well". And the king shall receive a sixth part of unclaimed property occupied by any other person'. In case of its being discovered without any information from the finder, he must be made to pay a fine as well". (Stokes 'Hindu Law Books', P. 131 ). The British Government, however, has never asserted any right to unclaimed property other than hidden treasure, and even as to hidden treasure the Act now provides for dividing it between the finder and the owner of the soil. As regards articles which are not found hidden and so do not come under the description of hidden treasure it is argued for the plaintiff that they are the property of the person on whose land they are found unless they are found in some public place. In south Staffordshire Water Company v. Sherman, it was held that two rings found at the bottom of a pond belonged to the landowner. In coming to this conclusion Lord Russell of Killowen, C.J., relied on Pollock and Wright on Possession, P.41, where it is stated that" The possession of land carries with it in general, by our law, possession of everything which is attached to or under that land, and in the absence of a better title, the right to possess it also. And it makes no difference that the possessor is not aware of the thing's existence .............. the legal possession rests on a real de facto possession constituted by the occupier's general power and intent to exclude unauthorised interference. "Blackstone's statement that the thing belongs to the finder is explained in the same judgment as referring to a case 'in which the thing was cast into a public place or into the sea - into a place in fact of which it could not be sold that anyone had a real de facto possession or a general power and intent to exctude unauthorised interference." In that case, while weeding in a field belonging to the Temple of which the plaintiff was the manager, the defendant found a gold waistcord, and a claim was made over the same by the plaintiff as owner of the land. In the written statement, the defendant admitted the finding of the golden girdle, as alleged in the plaint. It was in such circumstances, their Lordships said that possession of the land carried with it possession everything attached to it or under it. In the written statement, the defendant admitted the finding of the golden girdle, as alleged in the plaint. It was in such circumstances, their Lordships said that possession of the land carried with it possession everything attached to it or under it. 11. Still earlier, in the decision reported in (1871 1874 (7) Mad 150, the subject matter was some ornaments found in a tank. The entire village belonged to Rani Kattamma Natchiar who put forward a claim that she is the owner. The finder also put forward a claim that he is the owner. Their Lordships held that Rani cannot be given the right since she was not in possession and held that the finder be given the right over the ornaments. An argument was taken in that case that the Rani being the sovereign, she was entitled to have the ornaments in her right as Sovereign. The said contention was repelled. 12. While holding that view, it was held that :- "........ Now, as to the first ground the Civil Judge is right in his view that the Rani has no title to what has been hidden in former times in the soil now belonging to her. It seems to be sufficiently found that the idols were hidden in a stone chamber appropriated specially to that purpose, and not accidentally buried in the position which they would ordinarily occupy in a Hindu temple. The Rani could not, therefore claim a title as owner. ........." 13. 1931 AIR(Cal) 430 (Ram Ranjan Mallick v. Secretary of State), the question was whether forest produce will come under the provisions of Treasure Trove Act. Their Loreships held that Treasure Trove Act applies only to goods hidden and so far as forest produce is concerned, Forest Act alone will apply. Their Lordships, following the decision reported in 1908 (31) ILR(Mad) 397 (supra), held thus :- "It was next contended that the logs having been found upon the property of the plaintiffs, they are under the common law entitled to them or their value. In support of this proposition reliance was placed upon a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Manager of Hampi Sri Virupakshaswami Temple v. Iambana Golve. In support of this proposition reliance was placed upon a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Manager of Hampi Sri Virupakshaswami Temple v. Iambana Golve. In that case the plaintiff as Manager of a temple sued for a declaration of his right as such manager to a golden girdle found by the defendant in a certain field belonging to the temple. The defendant apparently pleaded that he was entitled to the girdle under the Treasure Trove Act. Their Lordships held that that Act had no application since the property in order to come under the Act must have been hidden. They further held that under the English Law, the possession of the land carries with it possession of everything which is attached to or under that land and in the absence of a better title the right to possess it also except in the case of articles found in a public place. They observed further that was the law in this country also. We see no reason to doubt the correctness of this view of the law. ......." 14. In 1946 AIR(Nag) 362 (Tirvenibai w/o Gulabrao v. Emperor), the learned Judge has exhausted the law on this enactment and has also discussed what is meant by 'Treasure' and 'Finder'. That is a case where certain ornaments concealed in a box were found. The claimant said that she was aware of the concealment of the articles in the wall and, therefore, it is not hidden. That part of the case was accepted. The question was, whether the labourer who broke the wall can be treated as 'finder', and, therefore, bound to report the matter to the Collector as provided under Section 4 of the Act. While discussing the same, in paragraph 13 of the said decision, the learned Judge has held thus : "The words 'Treasure' and 'finder' are critical. The meaning of the word 'treasure' as given in Oxford English Dictionary is : concealed, secret, occult. That denotes previous ignorance as to the existence of the thing at or near the place where it comes to light. The meaning of 'finder' as contained in the same Dictionary 'is one who comes upon or discovers by chance or search' and the meaning of 'find' is given as 'to come upon by chance or in course of events or to discover or attain by search or effort'. The meaning of 'finder' as contained in the same Dictionary 'is one who comes upon or discovers by chance or search' and the meaning of 'find' is given as 'to come upon by chance or in course of events or to discover or attain by search or effort'. There is difference between the implications of 'Chance' and 'Search'. Previous ignorance is a necessary element in the discovery by chance but it may not be so in the discovery by search. The difference between the two kinds of discovery may be clear by an illustration. A thief steals valuable property and buries it in a field. The owner of the field has no knowledge about the presence of the property anywhere underneath the soil. While ploughing up the field he finds the property. His discovery can appropriately be attributed to chance. On the otherhand if the accomplice of the thief is arrested by the police and he leads the police to a field in which the stolen property was buried by the thief to his knowledge but forgetting the exact spot where it was buried, he looks around the spot and after some trials and errors, he ultimately finds the property in the same field. Can it be said that he found the property by chance? The answer must be no. He found it by search knowing full well that it had been buried in the field. The word 'hidden' used in Section 3 and the word 'finder' used in Section 4 of the Treasure Trove Act must be understood in the former sense viz., discovery by chance; and that connotes ignorance on the part of the finder before the discovery. It is in the light of this interpretation that the cases of Parshya and Trivenibai have to be considered. The point is one of first impression but the discussion in 31 Mad 397 may well be of assistance for the decision of the present case. It was a civil case and the question there was whether a gold waistcord found in a field belonging to the temple of which the plaintiff was the manager was a treasure as defined in Section 3 of the Treasure Trove Act. It was held that as it was not alleged to be hidden, it was not a treasure. It was a civil case and the question there was whether a gold waistcord found in a field belonging to the temple of which the plaintiff was the manager was a treasure as defined in Section 3 of the Treasure Trove Act. It was held that as it was not alleged to be hidden, it was not a treasure. While coming to that conclusion it was pointed out that following the English Law the Treasure Trove Act (VI of 1878) only deals with the 'hidden' treasure. Under the English Law the crown can claim as bonum vacuum only that property which is found hidden and the real owner is not forthcoming. The rule of English Law is well enunciated in the citation by Fatwell, J. In 1903 (2) Ch 508 at page 608. It is as follows:- Treasure-trove, is where any gold or silver in coin, plate or bullion, is found concealed in a house, or in the earth, or other private place, the owner thereof being unknown, in which case the treasure belongs to the king or his grantee, having the franchise of treaure-trove.... If the owner, instead of hidihg the treasure, casually lost it, or purposely parted with it, in such a manner that it is evident he intended to abandon the property altogether, and did not propose to resume it on another occasion, as if he threw it on the ground, or other public place or in the sea, the first finder is entitled to the property, as against every one but the owner, and the king's prerogative does not in, this respect obtain. So that it is the hiding, and not the abandonment, of the property that entitles the king to it." " Treasure-trove is gold or silver, in coin, plate, or bullion, whereof no person can now prove the property hidden in ancient time and discovered recently." See Halsbury's Laws of England, 2nd Edition, Volume II, Page 376. A thing can be said to be hidden when the concealment and ownership of it are not known. 15. In 1967 AIR(Pat) 312 (Shyam Bahadur v. The State) also, the same principle was applied. That was a case where a cowboy, by accident, found a disc. A thing can be said to be hidden when the concealment and ownership of it are not known. 15. In 1967 AIR(Pat) 312 (Shyam Bahadur v. The State) also, the same principle was applied. That was a case where a cowboy, by accident, found a disc. The question was, whether the boy who was only a child, could be found guilty for not reporting the matter to the Collector, and the mother who did not ask the child, has connived or abetted the offence. Their Lordships of the Division Bench said that since the discovery was by chance, he becomes a finder and the disc is a treasure. In paragraph 7 at page 314, it was held thus :- "...... The difference is manifest and there can be no two opinions about the same. But, even without going into these dictionary meaning it is evident from the provisions of the Act that a treasure contemplated therein is an article concealed in the soit but the owner thereof is not known. Now keeping this in view, let us consider the facts in the instant case." 16. In 1982 AIR(Mad) 1 (Issac Judson v. Government of Pondicherry), following the decision reported in 1967 AIR(Pat) 312 (supra), Nainar Sundaram, J., as he then was, accepted the interpretation given by Niyoji, J. In 1946 AIR(Nag) 362 (supra) and held thus: ".... The meaning of the word 'finder' is 'one who comes upon or discovers by chance or search', and the meaning of the word 'find' is 'to come upon by chance or in the course of events or to discover or attain by search or effort". 17. From the above decisions, it is clear that the plaintiffs are aware that the silver coins were embedded or kept beneath their house, and while demolishing the building, they could find out the same. This will not amount to 'treasure' as defined under the Act, and the plaintiffs cannot be treated as 'finders'. If that be so, the defendant cannot say that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the coins. As has been held in 1908 (31) ILR(Mad) 397 (supra), since the plaintiffs are in possession of the building, naturally what is kept beneath or underneath the building also belongs to them. The ownership and possession of the building is not disputed. The finding of the silver coins within the compound is admitted. 18. As has been held in 1908 (31) ILR(Mad) 397 (supra), since the plaintiffs are in possession of the building, naturally what is kept beneath or underneath the building also belongs to them. The ownership and possession of the building is not disputed. The finding of the silver coins within the compound is admitted. 18. The question whether the suit is barred by limitation or whether the Collector acted illegally in directing the plaintiffs to file a suit, have all become academic, once it is held that the plaintiffs are the owners, and the provisions of Treasure Trove Act have no application to the facts of this case 19. On the question of law raised, the decision reported in 1949 AIR(EP) 33 (Munswar Ali Khan v. Punjab Province) will be of some help. In that case, a Division Bench of that High Court has held as follows: "The question now is whether the conclusive nature of the finding of the Collector regarding the treasure being a treasure-trove should have entailed dismissal of the plaintiffs' suits. As the words of S.B. which I have reproduced above, go to show, when a person is called upon by the Collector to institute a suit, the scope of the suit is to have that person's right to the treasure determined. In the suits with which we are concerned the plaintiffs did raise the question of their right to the treasure though they also challenged the correctness of the finding of the collector regarding the nature of the treasure and the place wherefrom it was recovered. The second point no doubt could not be gone into by the Civil Court, but there was no reason why the civil court should refuse to decide whether or not the plaintiffs have any right or title to the treasure ......" 20. In this case also, plaintiffs have challenged the direction as well as the observations both by the Board of Revenue as well as the Collector. But there is no prayer to set aside the same. But ultimately, the relief prayed for in the suit is for a declaration as against the Government that they are the owners of 360 silver coins. Such declaratory suit is certainly maintainable before civil court under S. 34 of the Specific Relief Act. But there is no prayer to set aside the same. But ultimately, the relief prayed for in the suit is for a declaration as against the Government that they are the owners of 360 silver coins. Such declaratory suit is certainly maintainable before civil court under S. 34 of the Specific Relief Act. Even without setting aside the orders of the Collector, the Civil Court is competent to declare the ownership of the coins. 21. Here, the question of setting aside the orders also will not arise, since the Collector, himself has directed plaintiffs to institute the suit within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of his order. From the file, it can be seen that the suit was instituted within one month after the date of communication of the order by the Collector. The Order of the Collector is always subject to the result of the suit. In that view of the matter, even if there is no relief asked for setting aside the order, any decision by the Collector also will be subject to the result in this case. The substantial question of law is, therefore, found against the appellant. 22. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed however, without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.