Judgment : Plaintiffs in O.S. No.341 of 1977, on the file of the District Munsif’ s Court, Chidambaram, are the appellants. The suit filed by them was one for declaration and possession. 2. The suit property originally formed part of 2 1/2 acres out of which 65 cents purchased by the first plaintiff and another. Which originally belonged to on Batcha Bivi, and the sale deed in favour of the first plaintiff is Ex.A-1. After the purchase, there was partition between the purchasers as per Ex.A-2 the first plaintiff got four cents out of the same; two cents was purchased by second plaintiff from the first plaintiff as per Ex.A-4 It is said mat the defendants are disturbing the possession and, therefore, the suit is filed. 3. In the written statement filed by the defendants, they deny the title of the plaintiffs. They also denied that the suit property originally belonged to Mohamed Ghouse Mian and also denied thee sale in favour of the first plaintiff. According to them, they are in possession of the suit property from 1940 onwards, and they have constructed a house. According to them, they have acquired title to the suit property by adverse possession. They pray for dismissal of the suit. 4. On the above pleadings, parties went on trial. On the side of the plaintiffs, first plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1 and another witness P.W.2 and marked Ex.A-1 to A-18. On the side of the defendants, both the defendants 1 and 2 were examined as D.Ws.1 and 2. Exs.B-1 to B-11 were marked on their side. 5. The trial court came to the conclusion that the defendants came into possession only on the basis of Ex.A-6 rent deed dated 4. 1958 and, therefore, they cannot deny the title of the plaintiffs. The trial court also came to the conclusion that even though the documents claimed right over the property, the documents produced by them would show that they have no right. The trial court also found that the building absolutely belonged to the plaintiffs, and the defendants are liable to be evicted. The claim of adverse possession was also found against. 6. Against the judgment, defendants 1 and 2 preferred A.S. No.46 of 1979, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram. The lower appellate court also held that the possession of the defendants is as per Ex.A-6 rent deed. The claim of adverse possession was also found against. 6. Against the judgment, defendants 1 and 2 preferred A.S. No.46 of 1979, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram. The lower appellate court also held that the possession of the defendants is as per Ex.A-6 rent deed. But the lower appellate court dismissed the suit on the ground that the property where the building stands is an inam property and, therefore, the right, title and interest have vested in the Government. It said that so long as the plaintiffs have not obtained patta from the Government, they cannot claim any right. The lower appellate court held that once the title of the property vests with the Government under the Minor Inams Abolition Act, whatever antecedent title the plaintiff had is also lost. Accordingly the suit was dismissed. 7. It is against that judgment, plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal on the following substantial question of law: “Whether that lower appellate court having rendered a finding to the effect that on the basis of Exs.A-1, A-6, A-8, A-9 and A-17 the plaintiffs would ordinarily have established their title to the suit property was nevertheless justified in not considering those documents as having any material bearing on the question at issue merely for the reason that the position in law in relation to land tenures had changed after the commencement of Madras Act 30 of 1963?” 8. On going through the pleadings, I feel that the decision of the lower appellate court is perverse. Once the so-called vesting of the land was long before 1958, and Ex.A-6 is dated 4. 1958, both the courts below have upheld the genuineness of Ex.A-6. It has also found that the defendants came into possession only on that basis. If the defendants came into possession only on the basis of Ex.A-6. they cannot deny the title of the lessor or persons claiming under him. 9. Insofar as the building is concerned, ownership can be had de hors the ownership of the land. It has been so held in the decision reported in Manicka Naickerv. If the defendants came into possession only on the basis of Ex.A-6. they cannot deny the title of the lessor or persons claiming under him. 9. Insofar as the building is concerned, ownership can be had de hors the ownership of the land. It has been so held in the decision reported in Manicka Naickerv. E.Elumalai Naicker, (1995)4 S.C.C. 156 , where their Lordships said that in respect of minor inams lands, the vesting if it takes place, is only in respect of the land, and if there is any building, the ownership of the building will not vest with the Government, and the ownership is only in respect of the land. Their Lordships following the earlier decision of the same court reported in State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga SwamigalMadam, (1985)4 S.C.C. 10 . It was held in the earlier case that if any decision is reached by the settlement officer under Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, the decision will not exonerate the jurisdiction of civil court, and the civil court is entitled to decide the question of title over the property. The grant of patta by the Government under the Act is not conclusive. In view of these two decisions of the Supreme Court, I do not think that the defendants in this case can contend that the ownership of the land and building has vested with the Government. In fact none of these questions arises in this case, once Ex.A-6 has been found to be valid. The courts below have also found that exhibits filed by the defendants did not relate to the plaint property. The only reason given by the lower appellate court to deny the right was that even though Ex.A-6 is in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot have a valid title in view of the Minor Inams Act. In this case, we are only concerned with the only question whether the plaintiffs have got a better title than the defendants, and whether the defendants possession was permissive. When that is proved it is further proved that the defendants have no other right, and they are bound to surrender possession of the property. In this case, we are only concerned with the only question whether the plaintiffs have got a better title than the defendants, and whether the defendants possession was permissive. When that is proved it is further proved that the defendants have no other right, and they are bound to surrender possession of the property. The question of law in this appeal namely, that by virtue of Exs.A-1, A-6, A-8, A-9 and A-17 together will prove a better title for the plaintiffs and therefore, they are entitled to possession of the property from the defendants, is found in favour of the appellants (plaintiffs). 10. In the result, the second appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment of the lower appellate court and restoring that of the trial court. Appellants are entitled to their costs in this appeal.