Judgment :- Challenge in this Writ Petition is the Order of the first Respondent confirming grant of patta in respect of the fourth Respondent for S.Nos.430/19 and 430/20. 2. Background facts are as follows – S.Nos.430/19 and 430/20, Ullikottai Village belonged to one Veerappa Thevar and the said Veerappa Thevar was in possession of the property. Srinivasa Thevar and Manicka Thevar are sons of Veerappa Thevar. The said Srinivasa Thevar settled at Singapore in his young age and died in Singapore as Singapore citizen. The fifth Respondent is the son of the said Srinivasa Thevar, who is also said to have settled at Singapore. The fourth Respondent is the daughter of Manicka Thevar. The said Manicka Thevar had executed a Settlement Deed in favour of the fourth Respondent in Doc.No.332/86 dated 25. 1986. 3. Patta was granted for S.No.430/19 in favour of the fourth Respondent. Joint rough patta was issued in favour of Petitioner and the fifth Respondent in respect of S.Nos.430/20 by the third Respondent. The fifth Respondent and Petitioner have preferred appeal before the second Respondent against the Order of the third Respondent granting Joint Patta. After thorough enquiry, the second Respondent confirmed the Order granting patta in respect of S.No.430/19 in favour of the fourth Respondent and cancelled joint patta issued in favour of the Petitioner and the fifth Respondent in respect of S.No.430/20. 4. Aggrieved by the Order of the second Respondent, Petitioner preferred appeal before the first Respondent. After enquiry, the first Respondent confirmed the Order of the second Respondent, which is challenged in this Writ Petition. 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that in the Civil Suit O.S.No.119/19982, Commissioners Report confirms the possession of the Petitioner and the first Respondent having found that the Petitioner is in possession of the land for more than the statutory period, ought to have granted patta for both Survey Numbers. It was further submitted that the Respondents 1 and 2 have erroneously granted patta in respect of the fourth Respondent on the basis of Settlement Deed by Manicka Thevar in respect of the fourth Respondent and the Settlement Deed alone cannot form the basis for grant of patta. It was further submitted that the proceedings are vitiated by illegality in granting patta in respect of the fourth Respondent while she or her predecessor in title are never in possession and enjoyment of those items. It was further submitted that the proceedings are vitiated by illegality in granting patta in respect of the fourth Respondent while she or her predecessor in title are never in possession and enjoyment of those items. Taking me through the relevant file, the learned Government Advocate has submitted that on the basis of Settlement Deed in respect of the fourth Respondent, authorities below rightly granted patta in favour of the fourth Respondent. Submitting that the subject matter of dispute had been in litigation for quite a long time, the learned Counsel for the fourth Respondent has contended that the second Respondent has rightly cancelled Joint patta in recognition of the fourth Respondents title. 6. The main basis of the Petitioners claim is that he is in possession of the property, as stated in the Commissioners Report in O.S.No.119/1982. Petitioner has no Document of Title in support of his claim of title. On the basis of documents produced by the fourth Respondent, patta was granted in favour of the fourth Respondent for S.Nos.430/19 and 430/20. The main object of Natham Settlement is to determine the ownership of Natham Land and sub-divide the land according to title. Only in the absence of document of title to the property, the factum of possession could be taken into consideration as proof of ownership and the fourth Respondent had produced registered Settlement Deed Doc.No.332/86 dated 25. 86 before the second Respondent. When the fourth Respondent has document of title, praying grant of patta on the basis of possession of the property is untenable. 7. In proper consideration of materials and documents the second Respondent has cancelled Joint Patta in favour of the fifth Respondent and the Petitioner. There is neither violation of Rules nor Principles of Natural Justice, warranting interference. 8. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.