JUDGMENT : C.V. Karthikeyan, J. This second appeal had been filed as against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.52 of 1999 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai District, dated 10.07.2001, in reversing the judgment and decree dated 1.02.1999 in O.S.No.207 of 1994 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Manamadurai, who had decreed the suit. 2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.207 of 1994 is the appellant. During the second appeal proceedings, the plaintiff died and his legal heirs have been brought on record consequent to the order dated 22.02.2008 made in M.P.(MD) Nos.1 to 3 of 2007. In the suit, there were six defendants. The sixth defendant was the Government of Tamil Nadu represented by the District Collector, Sivagangai District. No specific relief was sought against the sixth defendant. 3. The suit had been filed seeking declaration of title and consequential injunction from interfering with the plaintiff's possession. The suit property was vacant land situated at Thondaiyur Village, Ilayankudi, Sivagangai District in S.No.1/3A measuring 0.59.0 hectares or 1.47 acres. 4. According to the plaintiff, this suit property originally belonged to one Periakaruppa Konar S/o. Kalaiappa Konar. During survey and settlement proceedings, ryotwari patta was issued. After his death, the suit property devolved on his sons, Kannu and Muthukrishnan. 5. According to the plaint, the plaintiff's father Karthigaisami Thevar, was a mortgagee to the lands and was also cultivating the lands. Thereafter, the plaintiff, K.Ganesan and his father purchased the suit property under sale deed dated 21.04.1994 from the sons of Periakarupa Konar, namely Kannu and Muthaukrishnan. Patta was also transferred in the name of the plaintiff, who was in enjoyment. He claimed to have prescribed title by adverse possession. Claiming that the defendants 1 to 5, have no right over the property but also disputing the title of the plaintiff and are further claiming that the property was actually 'Kulamkorvai Land', the suit had been filed seeking declaration of title and injunction to protect possession. The sixth defendant, the Government of Tamil nadu, was impleaded as a party since it was pleaded that if the property was actually ''Kulamkorvai Land', then patta would not have been issued to the plaintiff and the land would have vested with the Government. 6. The defendants 1 to 5 filed a written statement claiming that the property was 'Kulamkorvai Land' of Thondaiyur irrigation tank. 6. The defendants 1 to 5 filed a written statement claiming that the property was 'Kulamkorvai Land' of Thondaiyur irrigation tank. A joint patta had been issued in the names of Dhandayutham Servai and the first defendant, T.Kathiresan, and the third defendant, T.Vandalsamy. However, they were not in actual possession as lands were a part of Thondaiyur tank. Neither the plaintiff nor his vendors were in actual possession. The exclusive patta issued in the name of the plaintiff was cancelled by the District Revenue Officer by order dated 19.10.1994. 7. During trial, five witnesses were examined on the side of the plaintiff. Four exhibits were marked namely, the kist receipts, sale deed dated 21.04.1994 and patta transfer order. On the side of the defendants, four witnesses were examined and two exhibits were marked namely, the proceedings of the District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai dated 15.04.1996 and the judgment in O.S.No.34 of 1963 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Paramakudi. The Commissioner's report and sketch were also marked as Court exhibits. 8. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the District Munsif Court, Manamadurai, had decreed the suit. The defendants 1 to 5 thereafter filed A.S.No.52 of 1999. This came up for consideration before the Sub Judge, Sivagangai. The learned Sub Judge, Sivagangai by judgment dated 16.07.2001, reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Munsif, Manamadurai and dismissed the suit. 9. In the judgment, which is now in appeal, the learned Sub Judge, had also marked additional evidence on the side of the defendants as Ex.B3 to Ex.B8. These included Adangal receipts, Survey plan and MSB copy. The procedure adopted for marking of these documents, had been attacked by the learned counsel for the appellants during the course of his arguments in this Court. 10. The learned Sub Judge, Sivagangai, on analysis of the additional evidence determined that the property had been classified as 'Thondaiyur Kanmai'. He also found that the plaintiff had claimed title to a part of 'Thondaiyur Tank', which was Government irrigation tank. The learned Sub Judge, Sivagangai, also found that the District Revenue Officer, had cancelled the patta granted to the plaintiff. Taking consideration of these facts, the first appeal was allowed and the original suit was dismissed. The second appeal had been filed challenging the said judgment and decree. 11. The learned Sub Judge, Sivagangai, also found that the District Revenue Officer, had cancelled the patta granted to the plaintiff. Taking consideration of these facts, the first appeal was allowed and the original suit was dismissed. The second appeal had been filed challenging the said judgment and decree. 11. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed for consideration: (i) Whether the lower appellate Court is right in ignoring the documents under Exs.A1, 2 and 4 where in the nature of ryoti lands had been recognized by the sixth defendant? (ii) Whether the lower appellate Court is right in concluding that Kulam Korvai cannot be an agricultural lands? (iii) When the defendants 1 to 5 themselves agree that the lands are patta lands and that they are in enjoyment of lands in S.No.1/3B and had themselves sought for joint patta, whether the lower Court is right in concluding that the suit property is a tank poramboke? 12. Heard Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr.S.Madhavan, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 and Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, learned Additional Government Pleader, for the sixth respondent. 13. Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the appellants, stated that the suit lands originally belonged to Periakaruppa Konar and Dhandayutham Servai. The deceased first appellant Ganesan had purchased the property from the sons of Periakaruppa Konar by sale deed dated 21.04.1994. This document had been marked as Ex.A3. The entire area was in S.No.1/3 to a total extent of 2 acres and 97 cents. The appellants claimed title to 1.47 acres. The respondents 1 to 5 were in possession of 1.50 acres. Joint patta was originally granted by the Thasildar, Ilayankudi. 14. Thereafter, the deceased first appellant Ganesan had applied for separate patta. This was also granted by the Thasildar, Ilayankudi. That was challenged by Dhandayutham Servai before the Revenue District Officer, who cancelled the order and granted joint patta. Thereafter, patta transfer order was passed. This was Ex.A4. The land was sub divided into S.Nos.1/3A and 1/3B. However, the District Revenue Officer, cancelled the entire patta declaring that the lands are actually Kulamkorvai Land. 15. The learned counsel for the appellants assailed the order of the Sub Judge, Sivagangai, and stated that additional evidence were marked as if they had been produced by the appellants herein. The land was sub divided into S.Nos.1/3A and 1/3B. However, the District Revenue Officer, cancelled the entire patta declaring that the lands are actually Kulamkorvai Land. 15. The learned counsel for the appellants assailed the order of the Sub Judge, Sivagangai, and stated that additional evidence were marked as if they had been produced by the appellants herein. He claimed that opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses on those documents was also not afforded. 16. The learned counsel for the appellants stated that the catchment area of the tank could be called as 'Kanmai Neer Pidi Poramboke'. However, pattathars enjoyed possession of the lands. During survey and settlement proceedings, the test was to see whether the land was sub-merged for a period of three weeks at the time when the tank was full. 17. The learned counsel for the appellants further stated that the lands in question were patta lands. This stand was seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and 5, who stated that the lands were actually on the part of Thondaiyur tank and they were part of the water body, catering to the needs of the entire village. 18. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the sixth respondent stated that the lands were actually 'Kulamkorvai Land' or 'Water Tank Poramboke' lands. 19. I have carefully considered the rival arguments advanced on either side. 20. The plaintiff, after purchasing the property by Ex.A3, sale deed dated 21.04.1994, had applied for exclusive patta. The Thasildhar, Ilayankudi, also granted patta. However, the respondents had challenged the same before the Revenue District Officer. The Revenue District Officer, again granted joint patta in the names of the deceased first appellant and the father of the respondents 1 to 5. This was challenged by the deceased appellant before the District Revenue Officer. 21. The District Revenue Officer, had cancelled the patta holding that the entire land is a tank and consequently vested with the Government and patta cannot be granted. 22. The first question of law framed was whether the lower appellate Court was right in ignoring the documents under Ex.A1, 2 and 4. These exhibits have been superseded by the order of the District Revenue Officer cancelling the patta. 23. The second question of law was whether the 'Kulamkorvai Land', cannot be considered as an agricultural land. 'Kulamkorvai Land', cannot be considered as an agricultural land. These exhibits have been superseded by the order of the District Revenue Officer cancelling the patta. 23. The second question of law was whether the 'Kulamkorvai Land', cannot be considered as an agricultural land. 'Kulamkorvai Land', cannot be considered as an agricultural land. They are the part of the irrigation lands for the Village. Patta cannot be granted for the said lands in the name of individuals. 24. In the case of Shanmugam vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2015) 5 LW 397 a full of this Court had explained the Public Trust Doctrine. In that judgment, it was held as follows: "32.........Res communes were excluded from private control and the trustee was charged with the duty of preserving the resources in a manner that made them available for certain public purposes. It has been further explained that the legal or moral concept of common ownership later emerged as more of a reservation of "a series of particular rights to the public" to engage in certain activities, thus limiting "the prerogatives of private ownership"....... 32. Whatever approach is taken, the fundamental emphasis is on communal rather than private rights. In cases where communal rights protector negates the rights of some, it implies a denial of the application of the Public Trust Doctrine. ........Where the resources are held by a state, the essence of the Public Trust Doctrine is that the state or governmental authority, as trustee, has a fiduciary duty of stewardship of the public's "environmental capital". ..... 34. In Michigan Law Review, Vol. 68, No. 3 (Jan. 1970), Pages 471-566, Prof. Sax said that three types of restrictions on governmental authority are often thought to be imposed by the public trust doctrine, namely: "1. the property subject to the trust must not only be used for a public purpose, but it must be held available for use by the general public; 2. the property may not be sold, even for fair cash equivalent; 3. the property must be maintained for particular types of use (i) either traditional uses, or (ii) some uses particular to that form of resources." 25. The third question of law was whether when patta was granted to the respondents 1 to 5, still the lower appellate Court was correct in concluding that the suit property is a tank poromboke. the property must be maintained for particular types of use (i) either traditional uses, or (ii) some uses particular to that form of resources." 25. The third question of law was whether when patta was granted to the respondents 1 to 5, still the lower appellate Court was correct in concluding that the suit property is a tank poromboke. The revenue records reveal that the lands are tank poromboke, which is conclusive evidence and consequently, the issuance of patta by the Thasildar, Ilayankudi, would have no relevance. 26. In this connection, reference can be made to the judgment of a Division Bench in the case of State of Tamil Nadu represented by the District Collector, Thanjavur Vs. A.V.Yagappa, (1997) 1 MLJ 473 , in which while dismissing it had been held as follows: Section 11(1), proviso stipulates that no ryotwari patta shall be granted in respect of any land falling under any of the categories specified therein of which beds and bunds of tanks and of supply, drainage, surplus or irrigation channels or one such category in respect of which no ryotwari patta can be granted. Section 11 - A introduced by Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1976 also provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the main enactment, any ryotwari patta granted in respect of any private tank or oorani under the main Act before the publication of Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1976 shall stand cancelled and for the purposes of compensation under the Act the private tank or oorani shall be deemed to be the land in respect of which neither the land holder nor any other person is entitled to ryotwari patta under the Act. Section 3 (b) of the Act also provides that the entire inam estate including all communal lands and porambokes other non-ryoti lands, waste lands, pasture lands, forests, mines and minerals, quarries, rivers and streams, tanks and ooranies including private tanks and ooranies and irrigation works shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them free of all encumbrances. The vesting under Section 3 (b) is not only complete but absolute and having regard to the amendments introduced under Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1976 as also the provisions contained in Section 11 proviso, there is no scope for granting patta in respect of the irrigation source or an irrigation channel even if it be a private source or private channel. 27. 27. Consequently, the appellants cannot claim exclusive right of the title over the said lands. 28. Further reference can be made to the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of M.Subbakannu Vs. P.L.Ramanathan Chettiar and another,1986 WLR 242, in which, it had been held as follows: ....By an amendment to Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948, made by Tamil Nadu Act 49 of 1974, a new provision was introduced as S.14-A in the Act. In S.14-A(1) it was provided that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no ryotwari patta shall be granted in respect of any private tank or oorani. Sub S. (2) with which we are concerned, reads as follows: "Any ryotwari patta granted in respect of any private tank or oorani under this Act before the date of the publication of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Amendment Act, 1974, in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, shall stand cancelled and for purposes of compensation under this Act the private tank or oorani shall be deemed to be land in respect of which neither the landholder nor any other persons is entitled to ryotwari patta under this Act." 29. The above said judgments, it has been clearly held that exclusive title cannot be enjoyed over the 'Kulamkorvai Land'. The Public Trust Doctrine as enumerated above directly applies to the suit lands. Consequently, I have no hesitation in dismissing this second appeal. 30. Accordingly, this second appeal stands dismissed with costs.