Judgment : 1.Plaintiff is the appellant. Suit was filed for a declaration and for consequential injunction. The suit property and its adjacent property on the east and south in a larger area in S. No. 628/1, 2 and 3 were minor Inam lands. The suit property is a part of S. No. 628/2 corresponding to old Inam Adangal No. 44. It originally belonged to plaintiff’s paternal grandfather Madura Nayaga Nadar and his elder brother Chinnathambi Nadar. They partitioned the property by a registered partition deed dated 30.1.1905. In that partition, the suit property was allotted to Madura Nayaga Nadar and he was in possession and enjoyment. After his death, the plaintiff’s father, Parthan Chandrav inherited the property and he was in possession and enjoyment. He mortgaged those properties by a mortgage deed dated 9.4.1933 and subsequently sold the property to the mortgagee. Subsequently, he repurchased all the properties including the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 27.1.1943. He created usufructuary mortgage deed (othi) and obtained a lease in his favour. Later he redeemed the property and was in possession and enjoyment. The Minor Inam Abolition Act (Madras Act 30 of 1963) (hereinafter called Madras Act 30 of 1963) came into force. Settlement proceedings were carried out and pattas were granted to the persons who were entitled to and were in possession of the property. The Settlement Tahsildar issued patta No.15, by his order dated 3.6.1999 in favour of plaintiffs father for S. No. 628/1,2 and 3 corresponding to old Adangal No. 65 to 65, 44 and 45. The plaintiff’s father died on 9.5.1973 and the plaintiff inherited the property and was in possession and enjoyment. 2. Plaintiff sold the properties in S. No. 628/1, a major portion in 628/3 and a portion in 628/2. He obtained approval for layout plans from the Sivakasi Municipality. Out of the remaining unsold portion in S. No. 628/2, measuring an extent of 34½ cents, the plaintiff donated 8½ cents to the Sivakasi Chamber of Commerce by a registered gift deed. The chamber of commerce obtained plan sanction and constructed a building for the chambers. The suit property was retained by the plaintiff and he was enjoying the property. Out of the remaining unsold portion in S. No. 628/2, measuring an extent of 34½ cents, the plaintiff donated 8½ cents to the Sivakasi Chamber of Commerce by a registered gift deed. The chamber of commerce obtained plan sanction and constructed a building for the chambers. The suit property was retained by the plaintiff and he was enjoying the property. However, the Municipality of Sivakasi started claiming that the vested with Government under the Madras Act 30 of 1963 and the patu granted by the settlement officer is not valid and therefore, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal on various grounds and more particularly on the ground that trial Court has erred in holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to the suit property as it has been vested with the Government under the Madras Act 30 of 1963 and also on the ground that the suit property was not a Oorani and the Settlement Officer issued a Patta only for a vacant land and not for a Oorani. 3.The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the suit property was public or private Oorani vested with the Government under the Madras Act of 1963 and whether the patta granted by the Settlement Officer is valid. 4.The admitted facts are as follows: S. No. 68/1, 2 and 3 were previously Minor Inam lands. The suit property is part of S. No. 628/2. Originally, the entire property was partitioned by two brothers viz., Channathambi Nadar and Madura Nayaga Nadar under Exhibit A1 dated 30.1.1905. The property was allotted to Madura Nayaga Nadar and was inherited by plaintiff’s father Parthanchandran. In the old Inam survey No. 64 and in Adangal No. 44, the property was described as Oorani. The plaintiff’s father Parthanchandran had dealt with the property by various deeds between the year 9.4.1933 and 8.10.1953 under Exhibits A2 to A7. 5.The Minor Inam Abolition Act (Madras Act 30 of 1963) was enacted in the year 1963 (herein after called as Act 30 of 1963). The Settlement Tahsildar has issued a patta in Exhibit A8 dated 3.6.1969 in favour of plaintiff’s father under Exhibits A8 and A9. The plaintiff was paying the kist from 1972 to 1987. He has also dealt with the property. The Settlement Tahsildar has issued a patta in Exhibit A8 dated 3.6.1969 in favour of plaintiff’s father under Exhibits A8 and A9. The plaintiff was paying the kist from 1972 to 1987. He has also dealt with the property. However, a survey was conducted by the Sivakasi Muncipality and the suit property was surveyed in Town S. No. 2 as public Oorani and notice was issued to the appellant. 6.Now the dispute is that the appellant is claiming this property as his patta land and the respondent Municipality is claiming the same as public Oorani vested with the Government. 7.Mr. M.S. Balasubramania Iyer, learned counsel for the appellant d had drawn the attention of this Court on the various aspects of Inam lands and the intervention of the Madras Act 30 of 1963 and the various provisions of the Act. The learned counsel argued extensively on the nature of various lands and more particularly, the characters of public, communal land and public tanks and Ooranis. The learned counsel also clarified the position before the amendment of Act 30 of 1963 regarding the public tanks and Oorani and the position of the private tanks and Oorani after the amendment in 1976. 8.The learned counsel with his vast experience in dealing with settlement proceedings, clarified what are all the lands vested with the Government prior and after the amendment and the validity of the patta granted during the settlement proceedings. This Court wished to place on record its appreciation for the learned counsel Mr. M.S. Balasubramania Iyer for enlightening this Court on those aspects. 9.The sum and substance of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that under the provisions of the Madras Act 30 of 1963 once the lands were treated as Inam lands and pattas were granted as vacant land, the character of the land cannot be changed. It is also submitted that only the communal lands and public tanks and Oorani prior to amendment and private tanks and Oorani, after the amendment vested with the Government. When a patta was granted for a vacant site and not for a private tank or oorani, it shall not vest with the Government. It is also submitted that only the communal lands and public tanks and Oorani prior to amendment and private tanks and Oorani, after the amendment vested with the Government. When a patta was granted for a vacant site and not for a private tank or oorani, it shall not vest with the Government. Simply because the properties and the adjacent lands were named as Oorani in the ancient documents, it shall not mean that the issuance of patta was not correct and the civil Court can not set aside the Settlement patta. 10.On the contrary, Mr. N. Dhilip Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the property is a public Oorani and was used by the public for bathing and washing purposes and it has vested with the Municipality. The learned counsel pointed out that the property was surveyed after due notification and the appellant has no right in the public property. 11.Heard both sides and perused the materials on record. 12.The dispute relates to survey number 622/2 part of an extent of 34½ cent at Sivakasi within the municipal limit. The origin of the suit property date backs to the year 1900. In the year 1905, two brothers viz., Chinnathambi Nadar and Madura Nayaga Nadar effected partition under Exhibit A1 dated 30.1.1905. The following item of the property was allotted to Madura Nayaga Nddar. This property was dealt by Madura Nayaga Nadar and after his death by his son, one Parthan Chandran Nadar. The said Parthan Chandran Nadar was dealing with the property by executing mortgage deed, othi deed, redemption deed, sale deed and repurchase deed. These documents are filed as Exhibit A2 to A7 between the period 1933 and 1953. 13.In 1969, there was an enquiry under Section 11 of Madras Minor Inam Abolition Act 30 of 1963 (Madras Act 30 of 1963). The Settlement Tahsilar of Kovilpatti had held a detailed enquiry of the Minor Inam of Sivakasi Village of Sattur Taluk of various survey numbers and adangal numbers. The said Parthanchandran was the 10th petitioner. His claim was dealt with by the Settlement Tashildar in paragraph35 of the order dated 3.6.1969. The property was shown in the schedule as Survey Nos. 628/1, 2 and 3. The said Parthanchandran was the 10th petitioner. His claim was dealt with by the Settlement Tashildar in paragraph35 of the order dated 3.6.1969. The property was shown in the schedule as Survey Nos. 628/1, 2 and 3. The documents of the years 1905, 1933, 1939, 1943 and 1953 were produced by the said Parthanchandran and in the conclusion the settlement Tashildar found that he is entitled for Ryotwari patta for the above said lands. While dealing with the nature of the property, the settlement Tahsildar has stated “ survey no. 628/2, pond on ground ” . The recital in Exhibit P34 shows that this pond as’patta oorani’and that the remaining extent of this block was the hereditary land. The order is produced as Exhibit A8. Under Exhibit A9 the patta for the above said three survey numbers was issued in the year 1969. After the death of Parthanchandran, the plaintiff inherited the above said three survey numbers. He has been paying the kist for various years and also dealing with the property, a portion of the property was also gifted to the Sivakasi Chamber of Commerce and Another portion was gifted to the Municipality for forming road. However, we are concerned only with an extent of 34½ cent in S. No. 628/2 part. 14.Between the year 1977 and 1986, the Sattur Municipality was surveyed. As per the town survey register, survey number 628/2 part was shown as oorani and more relevantly described as’Maruda Nadar Oorani’. However, it was also stated that the patta stands in the name of Parthanchandran, S/o Maruda Naicka Nadar, an extent of 2510 sq.mtr. Since the town survey number in WardD Block 18 was shown as Oorani, the Sathur Municipality had denied the title of the plaintiff who intended to form a layout in the suit property and the plaintiff has approached this Court for declaration. 15.An Advocate Commissioner was also appointed and he has filed a report and sketch, Exhibits C1 and C2. The trial Court had found survey number 628/2 is a Oorani and by the intervention of the Madras Act 30 of 1963 it was vested with the Government and the patta issued by the Settlement Tahsildar is not correct. In fact, the trial Court has virtually set aside the settlement order dated 3.6.1969. The trial Court had found survey number 628/2 is a Oorani and by the intervention of the Madras Act 30 of 1963 it was vested with the Government and the patta issued by the Settlement Tahsildar is not correct. In fact, the trial Court has virtually set aside the settlement order dated 3.6.1969. 16.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to set aside the patta issued in the year 1969 after the enquiry under Section 11 of the Act. The learned counsel pointed out that under Section 3 of the Act, the entire Inam including all communal lands and poramboke, other nonryoti lands, waste lands, lanka lands, forest, mines and minerals, quarries, rivers and steams, tanks and irrigation work, fisheries and ferries shall stand transferred to the Government and vest with them free of all encumbrances. The learned counsel pointed out that under Section 11 provides for the issue of ryotwari patta to the ryots in the Inam lands. 17.The learned counsel pointed out that though tanks and ooranis and other communal lands would vest with the Government on the date of the enforcement of the Act viz., 1963 the Act was amended only in the year 1976 to include the private tanks and ooranis. The learned counsel explained in detail the characters of those public tanks and ooranis and the communal lands and the characters of private tanks and ooranis. The learned counsel submitted that once the settlement officer had granted a ryotwary patta the decision has become final and the civil Court cannot go into the question and come to a different conclusion. The learned counsel relied on a decision in Chinnappa Gounder and Others v. S. Seshadri Iyengar and AnotherAIR 1981 Madras 8 wherein this Court has held as follows: “ In view of the special provisions in the Act whereunder an appeal could be filed against the order of the Assistant settlement Officer granting patta under Section 11 of the Act before a Tribunal and against the decision of the Tribunal in such matter before a special Appellate Tribunal, it is not possible to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the Civil Court will have jurisdiction to go into the matter when there are rival claimants for the grant of patta ” . 18.The learned counsel also submitted that the civil Court has a limited jurisdiction and relied on a decisions in State of Madras v. Ramlingaswamigal Madam (1969) 2 MLJ 281 and State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramlingaswamigal Madam AIR 1986 SC 794 : (1985) 4 SCC 10 . 19.The learned counsel further submitted that though the documents would show that the property is a oorani, on ground there is no such oorani or tank and therefore, the same will not vest with the Government or with the respondent Municipality. The learned counsel relied on order dated 3.12.2009 in W.P. No. 68 of 2005, wherein a single Judge of this Court has held as follows: “ 19. It is stated in the said order dated 27.5.1998 that although the document of purchase by the petitioner’s mother reflected an extent of 7.33 acres as covered under the sale deed, yet, as per the settlement, she was granted patta only to an extent of 4.09 acres and as per the Estate Abolition Act and Ryotwari Act 1948, an extent of 2.48 acres, which was under the possession and enjoyment of petitioner’s mother, was not granted patta. It is observed that the land in Survey No. 11 in respect of which patta was sought for, was under the enjoyment of the Mitadhar and thereafter of a sale in favour of the said Pavayee Ammal and after her life time her son the petitioner continues to be in possession an enjoyment. In the circumstances, even though the survey Lan Register contains description of the lands in Survey No. 11 as Kuttai yet, in fact, there is no kuttai and the entire area is under cultivation. Apart from that, there is no source by which were could be flown, thus to call it as a kuttai or a pond. Persuaded to this field report, the District Revenue Officer directed the Ryotwari Patta be issued in respect of lands in S. Nos. 11/2 and 11 to an extent of 0.25 and 0.90 hectares in the name of the petitioner herein. Persuaded to this field report, the District Revenue Officer directed the Ryotwari Patta be issued in respect of lands in S. Nos. 11/2 and 11 to an extent of 0.25 and 0.90 hectares in the name of the petitioner herein. ” 20.The learned counsel further submitted that the nature of the property either as a public Oorani or as a private Oorani has to be looked into at the relevant point of time to decide whether such property would vest with the Government or not and therefore, the respondent cannot presume that all Ooranis are vested with the Government. The learned counsel relied on a decision in Govindarasu Naidu, G v. State of Tamil Nadu1987 WLR 408 in which this Court has held as follows: “ 4. .... Hence, the relevant point of time for the purpose of deciding as to whether the lands were private tanks or ooranis should be the date of vesting, and that would be the notified date. If at the time of vesting, the lands were private tanks and if ryotwari pattas have been granted for such land before the date of the publication of the Amendment Act, then as per Section 14 A(2), they shall stand cancelled. The decisive date is the date of vesting, or in other words, the notified date. Hence, it must be found ut as to whether the lands were private tanks or ooranis on that date. The ratio of the Bench of this Court in M. Subbakaunu v. P.L Ramanathan Chettiar and Others clearly countenances that if the lands stood registered as private tanks or ooranis in the revenue records that must be taken to be conclusive. The relevant point of time to look into the revenue records, as evident from the discussion of the provisions of the Act, is the date of vesting or in other words, the notified date. If the revenue records show that on the notified date or dates, the lands stood registered as private tanks or Ooranis, that is decisive and the subsequent conversion or user would not alter the position. If only the lands stood registered as private tanks or ooranis on the notified date or dates, the inhibition with regard to grant of ryotwari pattas for them and the consequent cancellation of ryotwari pattas, if granted before the date of the publication of the Amendment Act will arise ” . If only the lands stood registered as private tanks or ooranis on the notified date or dates, the inhibition with regard to grant of ryotwari pattas for them and the consequent cancellation of ryotwari pattas, if granted before the date of the publication of the Amendment Act will arise ” . 21.As stated earlier, the point to be considered in this appeal is whether the appellant has a title over the suit property in virtue of the settlement patta issued under Exhibits A8 and A9 in the year 1969 or whether by virtue of the nature of the property viz., Oorani it vested either with the Government or with Municipality. 22.The nature of the property was described as Oorani in the documents from 1905 to 1933. In the settlement proceedings also, it is stated as patta oorani otherwise presumed as private Oorani. When the patta was granted in 1969, only the public Ooranis were vested with the Government. Under Section 3 (b) of the Madras Act 30 of 1963, all communal lands, poromboke including tanks and Ooranis shall vest with the Government. However, the settlement officer has given ryotwari patta for the property under Exhibits A8 and A9. An Amendment was brought in the year 1974, In Clauseb of Section 3 , for the words “ tanks ” and “ irrigation works ” , the words tanks and ooranis’including private tanks and ooranis’was substituted. Section 14 A was inserted under which no ryotwari patta shall be granted in respect of any private tank or oorani and any ryotwari patta already granted in respect of any private tank or oorani shall stand cancelled. That was the position in respect of tanks and ooranis including private tanks and Ooranis before and after the amendment of the Act. Therefore, one has to prove that the property in question was not a private tank or oorani when the amendment came into force. 23.According to the appellant, once ryotwari patta had been granted there is no question of cancellation of patta as the same was issued only for ryoti land and not as a private tank or Oorani. 24.Govindarasu Naidu, G v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), in which this Court has held as follows: “ 4. 23.According to the appellant, once ryotwari patta had been granted there is no question of cancellation of patta as the same was issued only for ryoti land and not as a private tank or Oorani. 24.Govindarasu Naidu, G v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), in which this Court has held as follows: “ 4. ....Hence, the relevant point of time for the purpose of deciding as to whether the lands were private tanks or ooranis should be the date of vesting, and that would be the notified date. If at the time of vesting, the lands were private tanks and if ryotwari pattas have been granted for such land before the date of the publication of the Amendment Act, then as per Section 14 A(2), they shall stand cancelled. The decisive date is the date of vesting, or in other words, the notified date. Hence, it must be found ut as to whether the lands were private tanks or ooranis on that date. The ratio of the Bench of this Court in M. Subbakaunu v. P.L. Ramanathan Chettiar and Others (supra) clearly countenances that if the lands stood registered as private tanks or ooranis in the revenue records that must be taken to be conclusive. The relevant point of time to look into the revenue records, as evident from the discussion of the provisions of the Act, is the date of vesting or in other words, the notified date. If the revenue records show that on the notified date or dates, the lands stood registered as private tanks or ooranis, that is decisive and the subsequent conversion or user would not alter the position. If only the lands stood registered as private tanks or ooranis on the notified date or dates, the inhibition with regard to grant of ryotwari pattas for them and the consequent cancellation of ryotwari pattas, if granted before the date of the publication of the Amendment Act will arise ” . 25.Therefore, the relevant point of time to decide whether the grant of patta was for ryoti land or for a private tank is only the date of grant of such patta. In the present case, the patta was granted for a ryoti land and not for a private tank of Oorani. 25.Therefore, the relevant point of time to decide whether the grant of patta was for ryoti land or for a private tank is only the date of grant of such patta. In the present case, the patta was granted for a ryoti land and not for a private tank of Oorani. Though there is mention about Oorani in the documents between 1905 and 1953 and also a mention about patta Oorani in the settlement proceedings there is nothing on record to show that the revenue records described the suit property as private tank or oorani. Even according to the Commissioner’s report, there are only some reminiscence of a pond or a tank in the suit property. But in fact, there was no tank or oorani nd there is no water source or water body at the present stage. In a similar circumstances, this Court in W.P. No. 68 of 2005 had held that the ryotwari patta can not be cancelled. 26.Therefore, the finding of the learned trial judge, that the settlement Tahsildar ought not to have granted patta for a public tank is not sustainable. 27.The appellant has been dealing with the property on the basis of the ryotwari patta issued for a vacant land and he was in possession and enjoyment by paying kist and the entire land had been converted into house sites and plots and the respondent Municipality had also approved various layouts and granted permission to construct buildings and therefore, the suit property is only a private property belonging to the appellant and the town survey has no bearing over the property. Even the town survey register would show that the property is described as Madura Nadar Oorani and the holder of the land is Madura Nadar and his successorintitle. 28.Therefore, the property shall not vest either with the Government or with Municipality and the judgment and decree of the trial Court is liable to be set aside and the appellant is to be declared as the absolute owner of the property. 29.In the result, the appeal allowed and the judgment and decree in A.S. No. O.S. No. 173 of 1987 is set aside and the original suit No. 173 of 1987 is decreed as prayed for.