JUDGMENT : 1. The suit in O.S.No.502 of 1992 has been filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction. The unsuccessful second defendant temple, who had lost before the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court has filed the present second appeal. 2. The appellant herein is the second defendant temple and the respondents 1 to 4 herein are the plaintiffs and the fifth respondent herein is the first defendant in the suit in O.S.No.502 of 1992. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as per their rank in the suit. 3. The sum and substance of the plaint averments are as follows: The land bearing Survey No.23/3 extending 30.20 acres in Elampillai Village, Salem Taluk is Eri Poramboke. The plaintiffs herein are occupying different portions of land in that Eri Poramboke from 1980 onwards and they have also put up construction in the properties after obtaining licence from the first defendant's Panchayat. The first plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the land marked as 'A' in the plan from 1980 onwards and other plaintiffs have also been in possession and enjoyment of the lands marked as 'B', 'C', 'D' in the plan for more than ten years. 4. Thereafter, the plaintiffs have been paying the penal assessment to the Government and have put up thatched shed in the portions and also have applied for approval of the first defendant. The first defendant approved the plans of the plaintiffs in K.Dis.No.1065/83 dated 30.11.1983 and are paying penal assessment from 20.07.1981. 5. The first defendant issued notice to the third plaintiff to remove a thatched shed put up by him but the penal assessment was collected for the same. All the plaintiffs are paying penal assessment to the Government. All their thatched sheds are facing towards west, but the Panchayat Road of Breadth 30 feet goes towards south and joins with Kakapalayam Main Road. In between the two roads, there is a Shandy place. The defendants have no manner of right, title or interest to interfere with the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the properties. On 08.06.1992, the subordinates of the defendants came to the suit property and tried to evict the plaintiffs from the portions by force which lead the plaintiffs to file a suit for permanent injunction. 6. The defendants have no manner of right, title or interest to interfere with the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the properties. On 08.06.1992, the subordinates of the defendants came to the suit property and tried to evict the plaintiffs from the portions by force which lead the plaintiffs to file a suit for permanent injunction. 6. The sum and substance of the written statement filed by the second defendant is as follows: The second defendant admitted that the survey No.23/3 of an extent of 30.20 acres in Elampillai Village is Eri Poramboke. There are no buildings belonging to any persons in the Eri plan alleged to be filed along with the plaint. They are all self serving documents which are imaginary and there is no such building at all in any portion of the Eri poramboke. In fact there are no buildings on the ground in the Eri poramboke and there is no house or shed in the Eri poramboke. 7. Moreover, the second defendant temple is conducting weekly market when there is no water and to their knowledge there are no buildings at all in that Eri poramboke. If the plaintiffs got licence approved by the Panchayat, they need not be paying any penal assessment. Just prior to filing of the suit they put up improvised sheds to show that they are in actual possession, which would be helpful to them to get an order of injunction from the Court. 8. Apart from the above, the property in question cannot be converted into buildings/house sites without prior permission of the Tamil Nadu Government. The suit is not maintainable for non joinder of necessary party i.e. The State of Tamil Nadu to be represented by the District Collector, Salem. The alleged sanction for putting up construction in poramboke land is void abinitio. The land in question has been periodically used for more than 70 years for temple festivals and public shandy. 9. In order to establish the case of the plaintiffs, the third plaintiff was examined as PW1 and an independent witness was examined as PW2 and Exhibits Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were marked. On the side of the defendants, the second defendant examined himself as DW1 and Exhibits Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 were marked. The Commissioner's report was marked as Ex.C1 and the Commissioner's rough plan was marked as Ex.C2. 10. On the side of the defendants, the second defendant examined himself as DW1 and Exhibits Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 were marked. The Commissioner's report was marked as Ex.C1 and the Commissioner's rough plan was marked as Ex.C2. 10. On a perusal of the entire records, the Trial Court decreed the suit and the First Appellate Court modified the judgment to the extent that the plaintiffs cannot be evicted by the defendants without due process of law. As against the judgment of the First Appellate Court, the second defendant has filed the present second appeal. 11. At the time of admission of the second appeal, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether the Court below was right in framing only one issue as to whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of injunction which in effect amounts to framing only one issue about the correctness of the Judgment and decree of the Trial Court? (b) Whether the equitable and discretionary relief of injunction can be granted to plaintiffs who have admittedly made false pleadings, suppressed facts and abused the process of law? (c) Whether the relief of injunction can be granted to persons who are admittedly encroachers in poramboke land particularly when the Advocate Commissioner's report and Plan (C1 and C2) clearly establish that there are no superstructures at all in the suit property, as pleaded by respondents 1 to 4 herein (Plaintiffs)? 12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second defendant temple would submit that admittedly the suit property is the Eri poramboke. Neither the fifth respondent/Town Panchayat nor the appellant temple has right over the suit property. In fact, the appellant temple for the purpose of generating income to maintain the temple, auctioned weekly Shandy and through the auctioned money, the appellant temple performed pooja and other works for the maintenance of the temple. 13. While being so, the plaintiffs, who have occupied the land without any valid title and patta have filed a suit after creating a bogus record as if the property was assessed by the Revenue Authorities and based on the Panchayat sanction plan, the suit has been filed. All the documents produced by them before the Courts are self serving documents. The plaintiffs are claiming their rights without proper authority and only through kist and other sanctioned plan approved by the town panchayat. All the documents produced by them before the Courts are self serving documents. The plaintiffs are claiming their rights without proper authority and only through kist and other sanctioned plan approved by the town panchayat. The plaintiffs are claiming title through self serving documents. 14. Though the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 entered appearance, he reported no instructions. 15. The learned Government Advocate who appeared for the fifth respondent would submit that no one has right to sanction or give approval for the building plan, as the entire property belongs to Eri poramboke. When the land is an Eri poramboke, the property vest with the Government and without the consent of the Government, neither the fifth respondent/town panchayat nor the appellant temple has right over the land and in fact nobody has right over the Eri poramboke. 16. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 17. On a perusal of the entire records, admittedly the suit property is an Eri poramboke. The plaintiffs have marked Exhibits Ex.A1 to Ex.A9. Those documents contain sanctioned plan approved by the Town Panchayat and other documents are kist receipts paid to the Panchayat. Admittedly, those documents are self serving documents, which will not bind on the Government, since the property in question is an Eri poramboke and vested with the Government. Neither the local body nor the appellant temple has any right over the property. Even on a perusal of Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 did not disclose the disputed property survey numbers. Unless the Government is added as a party to the suit, the suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. 18. However, the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court without considering these aspects, erroneously granted injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, which is unsustainable one. It is relevant to note that though the First Appellate Court has rightly observed that the plaintiffs cannot be evicted from the land without due process of law, however the plaintiffs are not entitled to encroach the Eri Promboke which is meant for water storage. If the plaintiffs are allowed to occupy the Eri poromboke, ultimately the interest of the general public will be prejudiced. The proper authorities are not added as a party. If the plaintiffs are allowed to occupy the Eri poromboke, ultimately the interest of the general public will be prejudiced. The proper authorities are not added as a party. Without impleading the State Government of Tamil Nadu as one of the parties, issuing direction against the present authority is unsustainable one. Accordingly, I find that there is a grave error committed by the Courts below. 19. In view of the above, I am inclined to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court. Hence the second appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.79 of 1998 dated 23.04.1999 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Salem. No costs.