Judgment : 1. Plaintiff is the appellant. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction. The plaintiff alleges that the 5 tanks involved in the suit belongs to one T.A. Gopalasamy and Sampathkumar and the plaintiff has taken lease of the right to fish in these tanks and has executed a lease deed on 23. 1974 in favour of T.A. Gopalasamy for six years and in favour of Sampathkumar on 4. 1974 for five years and the plaintiff is entitled to have the fishery right in these tanks. The plaintiff further contends that the defendants are attempting to prevent the plaintiff from exercising his right of fishing in the tanks and so the defendants must be restrained by an order of injunction. 3. The defendants contend that the tanks involved in the suit do not belong to Gopalsamy and Sampathkumar and they are Government poromboke tanks lying within the area of Panchayat and only the Panchayat has got right over these tanks and the fishing right is also given in lease by the Panchayat and the lessees are remitting the amount to the Panchayat and the plaintiff has no manner of right of fishing in these tanks. 4. The suit was tried by the trial Court and it was dismissed. Appeal preferred on that was also dismissed. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Courts below, the plaintiff has preferred the present Second Appeal. The questions of law raised at the time of admission of the second appeal are: “1. Whether there has been a proper appreciation of the law requiring registration of documents and application of the same by the two Courts below to Exs. A.1 to A.4. 2. Even otherwise could not Exs. A. 1 to A.4 be looked into to find out the nature and character of the right enjoyed by the plaintiff? 3. Whether the judgments and decrees of the Courts below suffer from the infirmity of omission to construe and misconstruction of material evidence on record when they held against the plaintiff? 4. Whether the Courts below are right in holding that Section 83 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act will be attracted to the facts of the present case?” 6. The plaintiff claims the right of fishing by virtue of documents in his favour under Exs. 5.A.1 to A.4. Exs. 4. Whether the Courts below are right in holding that Section 83 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act will be attracted to the facts of the present case?” 6. The plaintiff claims the right of fishing by virtue of documents in his favour under Exs. 5.A.1 to A.4. Exs. A.1 to A.4 are the lease agreements entered into between the plaintiff and Gopalsamy and Sampathkumar. The plaintiff contends that Gopalsamy and Sampathkumar are the owners of the tanks and the plaintiff has obtained lease for fishing in those tanks under Exs. A.1 to A.4. The defendants vehemently contend that only the Panchayat exercises right over these tanks and these tanks do not belong to the private individuals and the tanks vest only in the Panchayat and the plaintiff is not at all entitled for the relief asked for. The documents Exs. A.5 to A. 19 show that one N.L. Venkudisamy Naidu, Narayana Rao and Ramaswamy Mudaliar filed petitions before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur claiming their rights over the fisheries in the tanks and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur passed the order stating that the fishery rights of the tanks by the persons mentioned above should not be interfered with by the Panchayat until further orders, subject to the condition that the tanks should be maintained well for the communal purposes and that there should be no deviation from the existing local customs in the utilisation of the revenue derived from the fisheries. The dispute arise between the private individuals and the President of the Panchayat and the President of the Panchayat gave petition to the Divisional Development Officer, Thanjavur for handing over the fishery right to the Panchayat and the Divisional Development Officer passed an order under Ex.A.14 stating that the Panchayat should not interfere with the right of the private individuals. Challenging that order, the President of the Panchayat appealed to the Collector and the Collector passed an order stating that the tanks are poromboke tanks and private individuals have no right to fish in those tanks and directing the vesting of the fishery right with the Panchayat under Ex.B.2. Challenging that order, the President of the Panchayat appealed to the Collector and the Collector passed an order stating that the tanks are poromboke tanks and private individuals have no right to fish in those tanks and directing the vesting of the fishery right with the Panchayat under Ex.B.2. The Collector has found in Ex.B.2 that the claimant for the fishery right has not produced any documentary evidence for over a statutory a period of 30 years for the continued and uninterrupted fishery right over the tank in R.S.No.294/4 and on a perusal of the accounts produced, it is seen that the expenditure booked, seems to be not relevant to the present dispute of customary obligation and the fishery right cannot be continued with the Private party. It is also seen from Ex.B.2 that a notice was served on Thiru N.L.V. Sampath Kumar on 11. 1975 and he neither attended the office nor produced any records or documents to prove his rights over the fishery of the tanks and the customary obligation and accordingly he has set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur dated 112. 1963 and the order of the Divisional Development Officer dated 210. 1974. The Collector has ordered the vesting of the fishery right of the tanks with the Ramapuram Panchayat in Thanjavur Taluk. Ex.B.2 proves that Sampath Kumar, from whom the plaintiff claims right, was also served with the notice issued by the Collector and he neither attended the office nor produced any records or documents to prove his right over the fishery tanks. 7. The petitioner Gopalswami filed Writ Petition No. 2103 of 1975 against the Collector of Thanjavur and the Panchayat to quash the order of the Collector dated 3. 1975 setting aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 12. 1963. That petition was dismissed with the observation that the petitioner has to establish his fishery right in a suit where there can be a full-fledged trial in the claims made by the petitioner under Ex.B.3. The petitioner who claims the lease of fishery right in the tank under Gopalsamy and Sampathkumar has to establish that Gopalsamy and Sampathkumar the owners of the tank and the plaintiff has obtained lease of the fishery right in those tanks. The petitioner who claims the lease of fishery right in the tank under Gopalsamy and Sampathkumar has to establish that Gopalsamy and Sampathkumar the owners of the tank and the plaintiff has obtained lease of the fishery right in those tanks. So the plaintiff has to establish with documentary evidence with regard to the right and title of Gopalsamy and Sampathkumar and with regard to the ownership of the tanks and that the petitioners are the lessees with regard to the fishing right in those tanks. Unless the plaintiff establishes that Sampathkumar and Gopalsamy are the owners of the tank and the plaintiff has acquired fishery right of the tanks by way of prescription of grant, the plaintiff cannot acquire any lease of fishing right in those tanks. Admittedly, to establish the right of ownership over the tanks, Gopalsamy and Sampathkumar have not filed any suit. The observation of the High Court in the Writ Petition No. 2103 of 1975 is that the petitioner therein ie., Gopalsamy has to establish his fishery right in the suit in a full-fledged trial. So as per the direction only Gopalsamy has to file the suit and establish his fishery right in the suit tanks. Unless and until the rights of Gopalsamy and Sampath Kumar are established by an order of the Court, the plaintiff cannot claim any lease of the fishery right under Gopalsamy and Sampathkumar. The plaintiff has also not produced any documents to show that Sampathkumar and Gopalsamy had right. Even before the Collector, Sampathkumar, inspite of his receipt of notice from the Collector, has not appeared before the Collector and has not produced any documents. The order passed by the Collector under Ex.B.2 shows that the fishery right of the tank vests with Ramapuram Panchayat in Thanjavur Taluk. 8. Under Ex.B.5, the Collector has passed an order on 16. 1976 stating that the claim of Tmt. Vijayabai, N.L.V. Sampathkumar and Gopalsamy over the tanks of Ramapuram village Thanjavur Taluk for the private enjoyment of fishery right fails and the fishery right of the above said tanks are ordered to be vested with the Panchayat Ramapuram and the President, Ramapuram Panchayat will lease out the fishery right of the above tanks from the date of this order. No appeal has been preferred as against the order passed by the Collector under Ex.B.5. No appeal has been preferred as against the order passed by the Collector under Ex.B.5. As per the direction of the High Court the petitioner Gopalsamy has not filed the suit to establish his fishery rights. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff claiming lease of fishery right from the said Gopalsamy and SampathKumar is not at all maintainable. So by virtue of Exs. A.1 to A.4, which are unregistered lease deeds for the period exceeding one year, these documents Exs. A.1 to A.4 are not admissible in evidence and the plaintiff cannot claim any right basing on Exs. A.1 to A.4. Further as Gopalsamy and Sampathkumar have not established their fishery right in the tanks, in turn, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim his right under Gopalsamy and Sampathkumar. Absolutely, there is no evidence to prove that Gopalsamy and Sampathkumar had fishery right in the said tanks. So the plaintiff’s claim under Exs.A.1 to A.4 is not sustainable. Since Gopalsamy and Sampathkumar have not established their fishery right in the suit tanks, in turn, the plaintiff also does not establish fishery right in the said tanks by virtue of the documents. Ex.B.5 proves that the tanks have been ordered to be vested in the Panchayat. So the Panchayat has taken over the tanks by virtue of the order passed under Ex.B.5. 7. The petitioner Gopalswami filed Writ Petition No. 2103 of 1975 against the Collector of Thanjavur and the Panchayat to quash the order of the Collector dated 3. 1975 setting aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 12. 1963. That petition was dismissed with the observation that the petitioner has to establish his fishery right in a suit where there can be a full-fledged trial in the claims made by the petitioner under Ex.B.3. The petitioner who claims the lease of fishery right in the tank under Gopalsamy and Sampathkumar has to establish that Gopalsamy and Sampathkumar the owners of the tank and the plaintiff has obtained lease of the fishery right in those tanks. So the plaintiff has to establish with documentary evidence with regard to the right and title of Gopalsamy and Sampathkumar and with regard to the ownership of the tanks and that the petitioners are the lessees with regard to the fishing right in those tanks. So the plaintiff has to establish with documentary evidence with regard to the right and title of Gopalsamy and Sampathkumar and with regard to the ownership of the tanks and that the petitioners are the lessees with regard to the fishing right in those tanks. Unless the plaintiff establishes that Sampathkumar and Gopalsamy are the owners of the tank and the plaintiff has acquired fishery right of the tanks by way of prescription of grant, the plaintiff cannot acquire any lease of fishing right in those tanks. Admittedly, to establish the right of ownership over the tanks, Gopalsamy and Sampathkumar have not filed any suit. The observation of the High Court in the Writ Petition No. 2103 of 1975 is that the petitioner therein ie., Gopalsamy has to establish his fishery right in the suit in a full-fledged trial. So as per the direction only Gopalsamy has to file the suit and establish his fishery right in the suit tanks. Unless and until the rights of Gopalsamy and Sampath Kumar are established by an order of the Court, the plaintiff cannot claim any lease of the fishery right under Gopalsamy and Sampathkumar. The plaintiff has also not produced any documents to show that Sampathkumar and Gopalsamy had right. Even before the Collector, Sampathkumar, inspite of his receipt of notice from the Collector, has not appeared before the Collector and has not produced any documents. The order passed by the Collector under Ex.B.2 shows that the fishery right of the tank vests with Ramapuram Panchayat in Thanjavur Taluk. 8. Under Ex.B.5, the Collector has passed an order on 16. 1976 stating that the claim of Tmt. Vijayabai, N.L.V. Sampathkumar and Gopalsamy over the tanks of Ramapuram village Thanjavur Taluk for the private enjoyment of fishery right fails and the fishery right of the above said tanks are ordered to be vested with the Panchayat Ramapuram and the President, Ramapuram Panchayat will lease out the fishery right of the above tanks from the date of this order. No appeal has been preferred as against the order passed by the Collector under Ex.B.5. As per the direction of the High Court the petitioner Gopalsamy has not filed the suit to establish his fishery rights. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff claiming lease of fishery right from the said Gopalsamy and SampathKumar is not at all maintainable. So by virtue of Exs. As per the direction of the High Court the petitioner Gopalsamy has not filed the suit to establish his fishery rights. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff claiming lease of fishery right from the said Gopalsamy and SampathKumar is not at all maintainable. So by virtue of Exs. A.1 to A.4, which are unregistered lease deeds for the period exceeding one year, these documents Exs. A.1 to A.4 are not admissible in evidence and the plaintiff cannot claim any right basing on Exs. A.1 to A.4. Further as Gopalsamy and Sampathkumar have not established their fishery right in the tanks, in turn, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim his right under Gopalsamy and Sampathkumar. Absolutely, there is no evidence to prove that Gopalsamy and Sampathkumar had fishery right in the said tanks. So the plaintiff’s claim under Exs.A.1 to A.4 is not sustainable. Since Gopalsamy and Sampathkumar have not established their fishery right in the suit tanks, in turn, the plaintiff also does not establish fishery right in the said tanks by virtue of the documents. Ex.B.5 proves that the tanks have been ordered to be vested in the Panchayat. So the Panchayat has taken over the tanks by virtue of the order passed under Ex.B.5. 9. As I have already stated Gopalsamy and Sampathkumar, from whom the plaintiff claims his right, have no fishery rights in the suit tanks. After vesting of the tanks with the Panchayat, only the Panchayat has got right and the plaintiff has got no manner of right in the suit tank. In a decision in the case of Kaliamurthi Padayachi v. Panchayat Village ofUthama Sozhagan, by President , 1969 (82) LW 61, this Court has held that the Government must declare by virtue of Section 83 that the fishery right shall vest in the panchayat and in the absence of such a declaration, the Panchayat is not entitled to say that the fishery right also vests in it merely by reason of vesting of the tank by virtue of Section 84(1). It has further held that: “the legislature has taken of the existence of the fishery right in the village community as a whole in water works and made in specific provision in Section 83 that if there exists such a fishery right in the village community as a whole it should be administered by the Panchayat for the benefit of the inhabitants of the village. It is with this view that a specific provision has been made in Section 83 which enjoins a duty upon the Government to make a declaration, and only if such a declaration, is made, the fishery right would become vested in the Panchayat.” Since the tanks are vested in the Panchayat by the order of the Collector under Ex.B.5, only the Panchayat has got right to deal with the fishery right of the tanks under Section 84(1) of the Panchayat Act. 10. The finding of both the Courts below is perfectly in order and it does not warrant any interference of this Court. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs.