JUDGMENT : N. Sathish Kumar, J. The suit is filed for recovery of possession of suit property and for the damages thereon at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month for use and occupation from the date of plaint till the date of recovery of possession. 2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are as follows: The plaintiff is a temple governed and controlled by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (in short "HR&CE"). The defendant is the Chief Engineer, Highways Department, Government of Tamil Nadu. 2.1. According to the plaintiff temple, they are the absolute owners of land in Survey No.25/2 measuring 29 cents, situate in Thiruvanmiyur village and the same was encroached upon by the defendant for the expansion of Madras - Mahabalipuram Highway popularly known as East Coast Road, without following due process of law. Therefore, the plaintiff temple issued a legal notice dated 11.12.2004 under Section 80 CPC to the defendant calling upon him either to return the land or to pay compensation. Since no action was taken by the defendant, it is claimed that the plaintiff temple is entitled to damages for use and occupation in respect of the suit property at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of plaint till the date of recovery of possession. 3. The case of the defendant, in nutshell, is as follows: The suit itself is not maintainable. After proper publication in the Government Gazette, several lands including the suit property were acquired for the purpose of widening the Old Mahabalipuram Road and the cost of the land was paid to the plaintiff temple. 3.1. Further, though the plaintiff temple claims ownership based on 'A' Register, the validity of the same was denied by the defendant and the onus is on the part of the plaintiff temple to prove the ownership of land. It is the contention of the defendant that as per the revenue records, the land situated at Survey No.25/2 in Thiruvanmiyur Village, which is correlated to S.No.9 in Block No.8 of Thiruvanmiyur village, is a Government Poromboke of Public Works Department and used as a road and, therefore, the plaintiff temple was never in possession of the land and cannot claim the damages. 3.2. 3.2. It is also the case of the defendant that since the subject land is classified as Government Poromboke of Public Works Department, the question of publication of notification as contemplated under the land Acquisition Act does not arise and the plaintiff temple is not entitled for return of land. Hence, the defendant prays for dismissal of the suit. 4. On the above pleadings, originally, this Court, on 27.04.2010, has framed the following issues: (i) Whether the claim of the plaintiff temple to be the owner of the suit property is supported by materials? (ii) Whether the defendant is entitled to deny the validity of "A" Register? (iii) Whether the suit property is a Government poromboke land as contemplated by the defendant in the written statement? (iv) Whether the use of 29 cents of land in S.No.25/2 Thiruvanmiyur Village by the defendant for the purpose of expansion of East Coast Road, without initiating any proceedings under any of the Land Acquisition Laws, is valid and binding? (v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pay for recovery of possession? (vi) Whether the defendant is liable to pay damages of Rs. 10,000/- per month for use and occupation or to any other amount? (vii) To what other relief, the plaintiff is entitled to? 5. On the side of the plaintiff temple, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. On the side of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D1 to D5 were marked. The details of the same are hereunder: Exhibits produced on the side of the plaintiff : S. No. Exhibits Date Description of documents 1. P-1 - The certified copy of land register, Thiruvanmiyur Village 2. P-2(series) 11.12.2004 The office copy of legal notice 3. P-3 (series) - The postal acknowledgement Exhibits produced on the side of the defendant : S. No. Exhibits Date Description of documents 1. D-1 20.12.2011 The authorisation letter 2. D-2 - The block map No.8 showing T.S.No.9 3. D-3 - The photocopy of the extract of Town Survey Land Register 4. D-4 - The photocopy of the Chennai District Gazette 5. D-5 22.12.2009 The letter sent by the Tashildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Tk. Chennai -28 to the Assistant Divisional Engineer (Highways), Tambaram Sub Division, Chennai -100 Witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiff: P.W.1. - N. Balasubramanian Witnesses examined on the side of the defendant D.W.1 - Anandaraj 6. Heard, Mr. D-4 - The photocopy of the Chennai District Gazette 5. D-5 22.12.2009 The letter sent by the Tashildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Tk. Chennai -28 to the Assistant Divisional Engineer (Highways), Tambaram Sub Division, Chennai -100 Witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiff: P.W.1. - N. Balasubramanian Witnesses examined on the side of the defendant D.W.1 - Anandaraj 6. Heard, Mr. A.S. Kailasam, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff temple and Mr. T. Jayaramaraj, learned Government Advocate (C.S.) appearing for the defendant and perused the records. 7. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff temple that the suit property measuring an extent of 29 cents, comprised in S.No.25/2, situated in Thiruvanmiyur village, originally belongs to the plaintiff temple. The defendant for the purpose of widening the Madras - Mahabalipuram Highway, popularly known as East Coast Road, has encroached upon the suit land and laid a road. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff temple that the suit property was not legally acquired by the Government by publishing any notification and even no notice whatsoever, was served on the plaintiff temple. It is submitted that the plaintiff temple was also not paid any compensation. 8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff temple submitted that as per Ex.P.1 "A" Register, the suit property absolutely belongs to the plaintiff temple. Further, in his evidence the defendant has also admitted the genuineness of Ex.P.1 "A" Register. According to the learned counsel, though Ex.P.1 "A" Register was prepared by the Government, ignoring the same, certain documents have been fabricated by the defendant as if the property is the Government Poromboke land. It is submitted that Ex.D2, the block map No.8, showing T.S.No.9, Ex. D3, the photo copy of the extract of Town Survey Land Register and Ex. D5 letter of Tahsildar, all came into existence subsequent to the filing of the suit. Therefore, it is submitted that the said Exhibits cannot be given much importance. Adangal relied on by the defendant is also fabricated one, in which, there is no reference to the character of the property. In Ex.D4 also, there is no reference about the S.No.25/2. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff temple that the property is a Government poromboke land cannot be sustained. 9. Adangal relied on by the defendant is also fabricated one, in which, there is no reference to the character of the property. In Ex.D4 also, there is no reference about the S.No.25/2. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff temple that the property is a Government poromboke land cannot be sustained. 9. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff temple that there is no dispute with regard to the identity of the property in the written statement. In view of the genuineness of Ex.P.1, "A" register, there is no need for the plaintiff temple to establish the title by other means. The suit itself is filed for recovery of the possession, which was illegally taken out by the defendant. According to the learned counsel, there is no correlation to the original survey No. in the documents relied upon by the defendant and he prays for grant of recovery of possession. 10. On the contrary, the learned Government Advocate (C.S.) strenuously contented that the suit has been filed against the Chief Engineer, who is not a juristic person and that the plaintiff temple ought to have filed a suit against the State and not against the particular person. Therefore, it is contended that the suit itself is not maintainable as per Section 79 of the CPC. Further, it is the contention of the learned Government Advocate that except "A" Register, no other documents have been produced by the plaintiff temple to prove the title of the property. Mere entry in the revenue records will not confer title. Further, "A" Register was prepared more than five decades ago. Subsequently, there has been lot of changes took place and the District itself bifurcated by which process, part of the property is now lying within the jurisdiction of Chengalpet and Survey No is also sub-divided. Therefore, without establishing the title by convincing evidence and documents, the plaintiff temple cannot succeed in recovery of the suit property. It is also contended by the learned Government Advocate that the suit property has been acquired only for the public purpose and pucca road has been laid while extending Madras - Mahabalipuram Highway popularly known as East Coast Road. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the suit. Issues :I to VII 11. It is also contended by the learned Government Advocate that the suit property has been acquired only for the public purpose and pucca road has been laid while extending Madras - Mahabalipuram Highway popularly known as East Coast Road. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the suit. Issues :I to VII 11. It is the case of the plaintiff temple that the suit property belongs to them and the defendant for the purpose of widening the Madras - Mahabalipuram Highway, popularly known as East Coast Road, has encroached upon the suit property. The plaintiff temple has relied upon Ex.P1 "A" Register. On a careful perusal of Ex.P1 "A" Register prepared by the Revenue Department, it could be seen that originally, the suit property was shown as the property belongs to the plaintiff temple. Further Ex.P1 has been prepared after Estate Abolition Act and except the entry showing that the property, namely, S.No.25/2 is standing in the name of the temple, there was no reference whatsoever, as to how the plaintiff temple has obtained ownership of the property. 12. Be that as it may. The fact remains that Ex.P1 "A" Register is not seriously disputed by the defendant. D.W.1, Anandraj, Assistant Engineer, who was examined on the side of the defendant, in his cross examination, categorically admitted the genuineness of Ex.P1. However, it is the contention of the defendant that now the suit property has been sub divided and T.S.No.9 has been assigned, which is evident from Exs.D2 and D3. The defendant has relied upon Ex.D5, the sketch prepared by the Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane dated 22.12.2009. Ex.D3 is the Xerox copy of the Town Survey Register. The certified copy of the Town Survey Register has not been filed. Further, no explanation whatsoever coming from the defendant's side for such non-production of the original Register as well as the certified copy. The defendant has not accounted for nonavailability of either the original register or the certified copy of the Town Survey Register. In the absence of compliance of conditions, which are required to adduce secondary evidence, mere marking of the xerox copy will not in any way help the defendant. Therefore, this Court is not in a position to accept the xerox copy of the Town Survey Register, which is marked as Ex.D3. 13. Similarly, Ex.D4 is also the xerox copy of the so-called Gazette notification by the Government. Therefore, this Court is not in a position to accept the xerox copy of the Town Survey Register, which is marked as Ex.D3. 13. Similarly, Ex.D4 is also the xerox copy of the so-called Gazette notification by the Government. No certified copy whatsoever of the Gazette is marked and requisite condition for adducing the secondary evidence are also not complied with. Hence, Ex.D4 also cannot be given much importance. Likewise, Ex.D5, xerox copy of the letter signed by the Tahsildar dated 22.12.2009, is also filed to show that S.No.25/2 in Thiruvanmiyur village has now become T.S.NO.9 / Block 8 of Thiruvanmiyur village. This document is a mere xerox copy of the said letter and neither the original letter was produced nor author of the letter was examined before the Court of law. Therefore, this document also cannot be given much importance in the eye of law. Therefore, the contention of the defendant that Old S.No.25 /2 has now become T.S.No.9/block 8 of Thiruvanmiyur village has not been established. 14. Furthermore, in the chief Examination as well as in the cross examination, defendant has not stated anything as to how the old S.No.25/2 became New T.S.No.9/block 8. Therefore, in the absence of any oral and documentary evidence, the contention of the defendant that the suit property is a Government Poromboke land cannot be countenanced at all. 15. It is to be noted that Ex.D2 block map was prepared only during the pendency of the suit. The suit has been filed in the year 2005. The other documents, namely D3 to D5, exhibited on the side of the defendant also came into existence only in the year 2009, that too, during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, the defendant cannot contend that the suit property was originally Government Poromboke land and hence, the same was taken over for winding the road. Therefore, the contention of the defendant that the suit property is a Government Poromboke land has no legs to stand and summarily to be rejected. 16. In the background of the above discussion, now it has to be analysed whether the plaintiff temple is the absolute owner of the property. It is to be noted that except Ex.P1 "A" Register, no other corresponding documents whatsoever filed by the plaintiff temple. Admittedly, the defendant has denied the title of the temple in the written statement as well as in the evidence. It is to be noted that except Ex.P1 "A" Register, no other corresponding documents whatsoever filed by the plaintiff temple. Admittedly, the defendant has denied the title of the temple in the written statement as well as in the evidence. Therefore, the plaintiff temple ought to have filed some other documents to prove the title of the property. Though genuineness of Ex.P1 "A" Register is not denied by the defendant, merely on the basis of Ex.P1 "A" Register, title cannot be inferred. Ex.P1 "A" register is a revenue record. It is well settled that entries in the revenue records would not confer any title. Admittedly, Ex.P1 "A" Register was prepared long back, after the Estate Abolition Act and subsequent corresponding entries relating to the suit property for the recent years have not been filed before the Court. 17. That apart, the plaintiff temple has not even filed any other title deed relating to the property. It should be noted that every temple has to maintain a property Register under Section 29 of the HR & CE Act and the same has to be submitted to the Commissioner for approval. Further Section 30 of the HR & CE Act, also clearly envisages the annual verification of the Register. Further, as per Section 33 of the HR&CE Act, it is the duty of the Commissioner, or any other Officer, or any other person deputed by him, to inspect all movable and immovable property belonging to the temple and to verify all records, correspondence, plans and accounts and other documents relating to the relevant institution. Nothing has been established before this Court about the availability of such register or annual verification and inspection of the movable and immovable property by the Commissioner. Further, how the temple has become owner of the property from the very inception has also not been established. That apart, whether the property was inam granted to the temple or whether any Ryotwari patta was issued in favour of the temple, have not been disclosed before the Court. 18. Admittedly, the defendant has raised a cloud in the title of the temple. Further, it is also not in dispute that the property was taken over by the Government long back and road was also laid. 18. Admittedly, the defendant has raised a cloud in the title of the temple. Further, it is also not in dispute that the property was taken over by the Government long back and road was also laid. When the title is denied or cloud over title is alleged, it is the duty of the plaintiff temple to establish the title by cogent and convincing evidence before the Court. Except, "A" Register, no other documents whatsoever were filed to establish the title of the defendant. Further, cause of action alleged by the plaintiff temple also does not show when the defendant encroached upon the property and when road was laid on the suit property. 19. In view of the above facts, this Court is of the view that merely on the basis of Ex.P1 "A" Register, plaintiff temple cannot succeed in proving or establishing the title over the suit property. Though the defendant's documents are also falsified their claim over the property, i.e., the suit property is a Government Poromboke land, the same cannot be a ground to presume plaintiff's title automatically. It is for the plaintiff temple to establish the title of the suit property. It cannot take advantage on the weakness of the defendant's case. Therefore, this court is of the view that based on Ex.P1 "A" register, title of the plaintiff temple cannot be inferred automatically. 20. In view of the fact that the defendant has also not established his contention or claim over the suit property and that, there is no evidence whatsoever, etc., on record to show that the property was acquired or notified by the Government, it is for the plaintiff temple to establish the title by filing comprehensive suit qua declaration of recovery of possession or compensation. 21. It is to be noted that while widening the road, the suit property was also utilised by the Government and now the road was laid on the suit property. Further, the suit itself is filed only against the Officer of the particular Department, i.e., Chief Engineer, The Highways Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, who is not a juristic person. 22. Furthermore, since the road has already been laid in the suit property, even if the plaintiff temple succeeds, it cannot recover the suit property from the Officer, who was arrayed as a defendant in this case. 22. Furthermore, since the road has already been laid in the suit property, even if the plaintiff temple succeeds, it cannot recover the suit property from the Officer, who was arrayed as a defendant in this case. The plaintiff temple ought to have filed the suit against the Sate Government, representing by the concerned District Collector. 23. Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure specifically deals with suits by and against the Government and provides that in suits by and against the Government, the authority to be impleaded as the plaintiff or defendant, would be the Union of India or Central Government or the State or State Government. It is useful to extract Section 79 of the CPC., which reads as follows: 79. Suits by or against Government. - In a suit by or against the Government, the authority to be named as plaintiff or defendant, as the case may, shall be- (a) in the case of a suit by or against the Central Government, the Union of India and (b) in the case of a suit by or against a State Government, the State. 24. Similarly Order 27 CPC Rule 1 deals with suits by or against the Government or by officers in their official capacity. It provides that in any suit by or against the Government, the plaint or the written statement shall be signed by such person as the Government may like by general or special order authorize in that behalf and shall be verified by any person whom the Government may so appoint. 25. Likewise, Article 300 of the constitution deals with legal proceedings by or against the Union of India or state and provide that in a suit by or against the Government, the authority to be named as plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be; in the case of the Central Government, the Union of India and in the case of State Government, the State, which is suing or is being sued. 26. Furthermore, a constitution Bench of this Court in The State of Punjab v. The Okara Grain Buyers Syndicate Ltd., Okara & Anr. 26. Furthermore, a constitution Bench of this Court in The State of Punjab v. The Okara Grain Buyers Syndicate Ltd., Okara & Anr. ( AIR 1964 SC 669 ) held that if relief is sought against the State, suit lies only against the State, but, it may be filed against the Government if the Government acts under colour of the legal title and not as a Sovereign Authority e.g., in a case where the property comes to it under a decree of the Court. 27. Having regard to the above and also the fact that the road has already been laid by the State Government through Highways Department, even in the event of the plaintiff temple establishing and succeeding its case, it can be enforced only through the State and not against the post which the defendant is holding, who he is not a juristic person. 28. Therefore, this Court is of the view that without framing the suit against the State and impleading the State Government, as a party, the suit as such filed is not maintainable. The State is a necessary party and without which, no relief whatsoever, can be granted against the plaintiff temple. 29. It is pertinent to point out that the plaintiff temple has filed the suit only on the basis of Ex.P1 "A" register, which is not seriously disputed by the defendant. Therefore, I am of the view that the plaintiff temple can be given liberty to file a fresh comprehensive suit seeking declaratory relief for establishing the title, or recovery of possession or damages or compensation etc., since question of limitation does not arise, in view of Section 109 of HR & CE Act. Accordingly, the issues are answered. 30. In the result, the suit is dismissed with liberty to the plaintiff temple to file a comprehensive suit for declaration of title or recovery of possession or damages or compensation. Considering the nature of the suit, there shall be no order as to costs. C.S. dismissed - No costs.