JUDGMENT : This appeal has been filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the District Collector, Ramanathapuram District and by the District Health Officer, Ramanathapuram District against the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram at Madurai in O.S.No.26 of 1989 dated 25.07.1990. The appellants were the defendants in the suit. 2. O.S.No.26 of 1989 had been filed by the plaintiffs with respect to the suit property, which was described as 25 acres and 20 cents in S.No.518 Rameswaram Village in Ramanathapuram District comprised in patta No.925. It was stated that the family of the plaintiffs has been holding the suit property for about eight or nine decades. The patta originally stood in the name of Neelaganda S. Mahadeva Iyer. He had three sons namely, Neelakanda Joshi, Sindamani Rao Joshi and Radhakrishnan Joshi. 3. The first son died and his wife and two sons are the plaintiffs 2 and 3. The second son also died and his son is the fourth plaintiff. His another son also died and his legal heir is the fifth plaintiff. The third son is the sixth plaintiff and his sons are the seventh and eight plaintiffs. They are descendants of Neelaganda S. Mahadeva Iyer. It had been stated that the property was part of the erstwhile Ramanathapuram Zameendari. The Zameendari had granted patta. In 1945, another patta was granted in favour of the sons of Neelaganda S. Mahadeva Iyer. After his death, they were all in possession of the property. They were also paying the taxes. They claim to be continuance possession. They also claim to be owners of the property. They have been exercising their right of possession and ownership. It had not been interfered by the revenue authorities. 4. The old survey map shows that there were five temples in existence on the land. They belong to their family. They had been maintained by the plaintiffs. The Tahsildar of Ramnad once issued 'B' memo to the sixth plaintiff in the year 1969. That was objected and the Tahsildar dropped further action on that issue. There was a registered partition deed among the sons of Neelaganda S. Mahadeva Iyer. 5. The second defendant had attempted to make some marks on the lands. An order was passed by the Tahsildar, Rameswaram, on 25.10.1988. The defendants took an hostile attitude and they admitted to proceed with proposed construction. There was a registered partition deed among the sons of Neelaganda S. Mahadeva Iyer. 5. The second defendant had attempted to make some marks on the lands. An order was passed by the Tahsildar, Rameswaram, on 25.10.1988. The defendants took an hostile attitude and they admitted to proceed with proposed construction. The plaintiffs issued notice under Section 80 CPC. 6. The suit has been filed seeking for a declaration that the suit property belongs to the plaintiffs and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from claiming any right and interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and also for costs. 7. The defendants filed a written statement. It was admitted that the suit property originally belonged to Ramanathapuram Zameendari. It was stated that Ramanathapuram Taluk, in which, the suit property is situated was vested with the Government under Act XXVI of 1948 on 07.09.1949 as per G.O.Ms.No.2093 Revenue dated 11.08.1949, when the survey and settlement was effected in Fasli 1367. 8. The suit property was treated as Government land. It was classified as "Assessed Dry Waste". It was also subdivided. Grant of patta to Neelaganda S. Mahadeva Iyer, was denied as a false statement. It had been stated that the plaintiffs have no right over the suit property. They are not in possession of the suit property. Notice had been issued to the erstwhile ryots, who had valid documents to prove their possession and right in the lands. 9. During the time of survey and settlement, the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit property. It is true that there are five small temples. The plaintiffs will have to prove their right in the temples. The alleged partition deed among the plaintiffs was not admitted by the defendants. It is stated that the land is Government land. The Government has every right to deal with the lands. 10. A portion of the suit lands measuring 1 acre was leased to the Health Department/second defendant. Objections were not raised by anybody. Similarly, 0.30 cents was handed over to the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited for the construction of L.P.G., Gas Godowns. The second defendant had handed over the site to the Public Works Department for the construction of buildings and the constructions were made upto the level of basement. The plaintiffs never raised any objections. It had been stated that the suit should be dismissed. The second defendant had handed over the site to the Public Works Department for the construction of buildings and the constructions were made upto the level of basement. The plaintiffs never raised any objections. It had been stated that the suit should be dismissed. 11. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed: i. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the suit property? ii. Whether the property was in the possession of the plaintiffs? iii. Whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation? iv. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to decide the suit? v. Whether the proper Court fees has been paid? vi. Whether the notice under Section 80 CPC is legally valid? vii. Whether the suit is maintainable? viii. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration and injunction? ix. To what other reliefs, the plaintiffs are entitled too? 12. During trial, the plaintiffs examined the sixth plaintiff as P.W1. He marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. These included the patta granted to Neelaganda S. Mahadeva Iyer in Fasli 1311 dated 30.06.1902 as Ex.A3, granted in Fasli 1329 dated 21.04.1921 as Ex.A4, granted in Fasli 1352 dated 30.06.1945 as Ex.A5, granted in Fasli 1354 dated 30.06.1945 as Ex.A6. The registered partition deed among the family of the Neelakanda Joshi, dated 04.07.1945 was marked as Ex.A7. The land taxes paid were marked as Exs.A9 to A14. 13. Letter Correspondence between Neelaganda S. Mahadeva Iyer with respect to the lands with the Varthaman were also marked as Exs. A15, 18 and 19. The notice dated 05.10.1988 was marked as Ex.A31, The notice sent by the Tahsildar, Rameswaram dated 25.10.1988 was marked as Ex.A36. The advocate notice dated 13.02.1989 was marked as Ex.A37. 14. On the side of the defendants, the Village Administrative Officer and the Junior Engineer of PWD, were examined as D.W1 and D.W2. They marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B9. The settlement register for S.No.518 dated 01.12.1989 was marked as Ex.B1 and dated 14.03.1990 was marked as Ex.B2. Adangal was marked as Ex.B3. Handing over document of the site to the Health Department on 09.09.1988 was marked as Ex.B4. Handing over document of the site to PWD for construction dated 12.09.1988 was marked as Ex.B6. Handing over document of the site to the building contractor dated 12.09.1988 was marked as Ex.B7. The advocate commissioner's report and plan were marked as Ex.C1 and Ex.C2. 15. Handing over document of the site to PWD for construction dated 12.09.1988 was marked as Ex.B6. Handing over document of the site to the building contractor dated 12.09.1988 was marked as Ex.B7. The advocate commissioner's report and plan were marked as Ex.C1 and Ex.C2. 15. On the basis of the documentary and oral evidence, the learned Sub Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai took up issue numbers 1 to 4 together. These related to whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the suit properties, whether the suit property was in their possession, whether the suit was barred by limitation and whether the Court had jurisdiction to enquire into the issues. 16. The learned Sub Judge examined Ex.A8 to Ex.A14, which are the land tax receipts paid by Neelaganda S. Mahadeva Iyer and the registered partition deed marked as Ex.A7. The learned Sub Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai also considered the house tax receipts marked as Ex.A23-Ex.A26. It was found that the land was categorized as "Assessed Dry Waste". The documents handing over the land to the PWD and to the Health Department were also considered by the learned Sub Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai. 17. The learned Sub Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai finally held that the plaintiffs were entitled to the property, that they were in possession and that the suit is not barred by limitation and that the Court has jurisdiction. The other issues were also answered in favour of the plaintiffs and finally the suit was decreed as prayed for by granting the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction. The defendants have filed the present appeal. Pending appeal, the sixth plaintiff died. 18. Heard Mr. Gunaseelan Muthiah, learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr. M.S. Balasubramania Iyer, learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 5 and 7 to 9. The appeal had been dismissed against the first respondent by order dated 20.08.2015. There was no appearance on behalf of the second respondent. 19. During the course of arguments, the learned Additional Government Pleader stated that the lands of the Ramanathapuram Zameendari in Rameswaram Taluk had vested with the Government under Act XXVI of 1948 on 07.09.1949 as per G.O.Ms.No.2093 Revenue dated 11.08.1949. It was treated as Government lands during survey and settlement. It was classified and registered as "Assessed Dry Waste" in the Government account by the settlement authorities. It had also been sub divided. 20. It was treated as Government lands during survey and settlement. It was classified and registered as "Assessed Dry Waste" in the Government account by the settlement authorities. It had also been sub divided. 20. It was also pointed out that Neelaganda S. Mahadeva Iyer was not a ryot. It was stated that the respondents were not in possession and have no title over the property. It was also pointed out that 0.30 cents of lands was handed over to the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. Moreover, 1 acre of the site was also handed over to the Health Department. It was handed over to the PWD for construction. Construction had commenced. It was stated that the appeal should be allowed. 21. On the other hand, Mr. M.S. Balasubramania Iyer, learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 5 and 7 to 9 disputed the said contentions. He stated that the punja and nanja crops cannot be cultivated on the lands since the soil was sandy in nature. Only fruits bearing trees can be cultivated. The learned counsel reiterated that the title can be recognized by the Zameendari and patta in Ex.A3 had also been given. Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 also reflect that patta had been given. Ex.A6, the partition deed also gave rights to conduct the poojas in the temples. It had been established that the respondents were ryots. It had also been stated that a ryot was not under obligation to apply for patta. The survey and settlement authorities should consider the nature of existing title and were obliged to issue patta. It had been stated that there is no infirmity in the judgment below and consequently, the learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 5 and 7 to 9 stated that the appeal must be dismissed. 22. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. 23. The plaintiffs claim declaration of title and permanent injunction with respect to the suit property lands measuring 25 acres and 20 cents in S.No.518, Rameswaram Village in Ramanathapuram District comprised in patta No.925. The points, which naturally arise for determination in this appeal are: (i) Whether the plaintiffs have established their title to the suit property? (ii) Whether the claim of the defendants that the lands have vested with the Government is true? (iii) Whether the plaintiffs have established possession of the entire 25 acres 20 cents of land? The points, which naturally arise for determination in this appeal are: (i) Whether the plaintiffs have established their title to the suit property? (ii) Whether the claim of the defendants that the lands have vested with the Government is true? (iii) Whether the plaintiffs have established possession of the entire 25 acres 20 cents of land? (iv) Whether the defendants have taken possession of portion of the lands after subdividing the same? (v) Whether the judgment under appeal is to be interfered with? 24. The points discussed and answered: 25. The parties shall be referred as plaintiffs and defendants. The plaintiffs are the respondents and the defendants are the appellants. 26. Declaration of title can be granted only when the plaintiffs have established title. The plaintiffs claim to be the descendants of Neelaganda S. Mahadeva Iyer. He had three sons namely, Neelakanda Joshi, Sindamani Rao Joshi and Radhakrishnan Joshi. The first son is said to have died in the year 1977. He left behind his wife and two sons, who are the first, second and third plaintiffs. The second son Sindamani Rao Joshi, also died in the year 1980. He left behind two sons. The first son was the fourth plaintiff and the second son died. His legal heir has been joined as fifth plaintiff. The third son, namely, Radhakrishnan Joshi, is the sixth plaintiff. The seventh and eighth plaintiffs are the sons of the sixth plaintiff. Pending the appeal, the sixth plaintiff also died and his wife had been brought on record as the ninth respondent in the appeal. 27. The plaintiffs claim right and title over the entire 25 acres and 20 cents of land when actually the joint nucleus has been divided by the partition deed marked as Ex.A7 dated 04.07.1945. The original partition deed has been produced before this Court as a document. Even at the time of execution of the partition deed, Neelaganda S. Mahadeva Iyer had died. The partition deed has been executed among Neelakanda Joshi, his younger brother Sindamani Rao Joshi and his brother Radhakrishnan Joshi and their mother, Sundara bai. 28. Once this registered partition deed had come into effect, the title of each branch of the three sons of Neelaganda S. Mahadeva Iyer can be traced only to the partition deed. The partition deed has been executed among Neelakanda Joshi, his younger brother Sindamani Rao Joshi and his brother Radhakrishnan Joshi and their mother, Sundara bai. 28. Once this registered partition deed had come into effect, the title of each branch of the three sons of Neelaganda S. Mahadeva Iyer can be traced only to the partition deed. Though the property could have been in the possession of Neelaganda S. Mahadeva Iyer even earlier, the title vested on the plaintiffs only by operation of Ex.A7. 29. According to the partition deed, each one of the parties were allotted specific portions of lands. The entire area was subdivided. 'A' schedule was allowed to Neelakanda Joshi. 'B' schedule was allowed to Radhakrishnan Joshi. 'C' schedule was kept in common. The second son Sindamani Rao Joshi, was also allotted shares. 30. The defendants on the other hand claim that the properties have vested with the Government. They have produced Ex.B1, which is an extract from the settlement register with respect to S.No.518. It is seen that the entire land had been subdivided into sub portions. The lands were classified as "Anadheenam Lands, which is described in Ramanatha Iyer Law Lexicon Edition as follows: Anadheenam land means the land for which patta has been issued by the revenue department, however such land were not claimed by its owners for long time and taxes for the land were not paid for long term. These lands are possessed by the government till the actual owner claim the land. 31. The lands were classified as Government lands. Ex.B2 is also an extract from the settlement register. Even in extract, the lands were classified as Government lands. S.No.518 had been subdivided into seven portions. Each portion contain 0.91 acres. This was classified as "Assessed Dry Waste". Ex.B3 is the adangal for S.No.518. Even, in this document, the lands were classified as "Assessed Dry Waste". Ex.B4 is the handing over document of the site of a part of S.No.518, which had been classified as "Assessed Dry Waste" measuring 1 acre to the Public Health Department, District Health Officer, Ramnad, the second defendant, for the purpose of construction of Malaria Field Station, Staff Quarters and Godown. 32. This 1 acre of land was handed over by order dated 07.09.1988 and enter upon permission was also granted. It was handed over by the Tahsildar, Rameswaram. 32. This 1 acre of land was handed over by order dated 07.09.1988 and enter upon permission was also granted. It was handed over by the Tahsildar, Rameswaram. There is no evidence to show that the plaintiffs have objected to the handing over of 1 acre, being a portion of the property to the second defendant. There is no evidence to show that they have challenged this handing over of the land. 33. Ex.B5 is the field map of the suit schedule property. Ex.B6 is the document relating handing over of the said portion to the PWD for construction of Malaria Field Station, Staff Quarters and Godown. This was handed over to the PWD. Ex.B7 is the handing over of the said lands of 1 acre by the PWD to the contractor to commence construction as per the agreement dated 12.09.1988. Ex.B8 is the estimate for putting up the construction and the estimate came up to Rs.4,72,699.25/- and Ex.B9 is the time schedule for the construction. By the institution of the suit nearly three decades have gone by. The estimate for construction would have risen multitude of times. That would be a direct loss to the exchequer and public funds. 34. It is seen that these documents were not at all examined by the trial Court. These documents clearly establish that a portion of the lands have actually been handed over to the PWD. On the other hand, the plaintiffs have not even whispered about these developments in the plaint. In the plaint, they stated that they found without giving any date of when they found, some marks on the lands being done in the first week of October 1988. This is hardly the attitude of a man who claims title. 35. It is also seen from the written statement that another portion of the lands measuring 0.30 acres in S.No.518/5 was handed over to the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited for the construction of L.P.G. Godown. It is specifically stated that the lands are now in the possession of the Health Department and the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. 36. During his cross examination P.W1 admitted that in Ex.A5, S.No.518 was not mentioned. In Ex.A6, the patta number given was 925. Even in Ex.A5, though the patta number given was 925, in the S.No.751 was given. In Ex.A6, Survey Number given was 468. 36. During his cross examination P.W1 admitted that in Ex.A5, S.No.518 was not mentioned. In Ex.A6, the patta number given was 925. Even in Ex.A5, though the patta number given was 925, in the S.No.751 was given. In Ex.A6, Survey Number given was 468. He also stated that he was not aware of the survey and settlement proceedings. 37. He further stated that in Ex.A7 though the extent properties to which the plaintiffs were entitled was mentioned, the fact that the properties measured to 25 acres and 20 cents was not given. In Ex.A7, the Survey Number given was 518/1. In the plaint, the Survey Number given was 518. He did not know the extent of S.No.518/1. He also admitted that Survey Number was not given in Ex.A10 to Ex.A30. He also admitted that in Ex.A30, patta number 1000 was given and that it related to some other properties. 38. He also admitted that in Ex.A40, the patta number was not given. He stated that the taxes till 1943 were paid by his father. In Ex.A21, the extent was not given. Similarly, in Ex.A15 also, extent was not given. Extent was also not given in Ex.A21. Extent was also not given in Ex.A2. In the patta granted in 1945, S.No.518 was not mentioned. He also admitted that Ex.A19 did not relate to the suit properties. He also stated that the persons mentioned in Exs.A15, 6, 17, 21 and 18 have all died. 39. He also admitted that quite apart from the Government, two other persons have encroached upon the lands for the past four years. He stated that the plaintiffs have not filed any suit against the said encroachers. They had not even issued notice to the said encroachers. He also admitted that neither him nor any of the plaintiffs had given any petition seeking patta from the survey and settlement officers. 40. During his further cross examination, P.W1 admitted that one Velu Servai had encroached some portion of the lands. He also stated that nearly 2 acres of land have been encroached by various other individuals. He did not know the exact area of said encroachment. The above evidence clearly shows that the plaintiffs have come to Court on a weak ground of title. They only claim their right from the patta granted by the Ramanathapuram Zameendari. He also stated that nearly 2 acres of land have been encroached by various other individuals. He did not know the exact area of said encroachment. The above evidence clearly shows that the plaintiffs have come to Court on a weak ground of title. They only claim their right from the patta granted by the Ramanathapuram Zameendari. But that patta was granted in the name of Neelaganda S. Mahadeva Iyer. After his death, his three sons and his wife entered into a registered partition deed and divided the lands into four or atleast into three distinct parts. Each one of the branch will have to independently claim right over the lands allotted to them. In the schedule of the plaint only the survey number is given. The boundaries are not given. The property has not been described in detail. It is admitted by P.W1 that there are encroachments. The encroachers have not been made parties to the suit. Only the Government has been impleaded as defendant. It is settled principle that once the land had been acquired for public purpose, compensation alone can be sought. Preventing said public purpose being carried out would only increase public expenditure which are incurred from the taxes paid by the general public. The plaintiffs have not established title. They had not participated in the survey and settlement proceedings. There is also no evidence produced to show that they are ryots. 41. D.W1, the Village Administrative Officer, also let in evidence. During his cross examination, he was questioned regarding records that were not produced before this Court. It must be mentioned that it is the plaintiffs, who have come to the Court seeking declaration of title. The burden was on them to summon necessary records and registers to establish their title. This burden can never be shifted to the defendants. 42. As a matter of fact, the plaintiffs have to establish not only their title but also possession over the entire 25 acres and 20 cents. That has not been done. They are not agriculturists. They have a separate and distinct profession. The documents filed by the defendants have clearly established that portions of the property had already been handed over to the Health Department and to the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. The witness for the plaintiffs admitted encroachments by private individuals. 43. That has not been done. They are not agriculturists. They have a separate and distinct profession. The documents filed by the defendants have clearly established that portions of the property had already been handed over to the Health Department and to the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. The witness for the plaintiffs admitted encroachments by private individuals. 43. I hold that the plaintiffs have not established their title over the entire suit property. Even in the report of the Advocate Commissioner, it is stated that there was one big temple and there are other small temples in the property. It is also stated that the temples are in dilapidated condition. It is also stated that there are encroachers who have occupied the lands. The commissioner has also filed the field plan. 44. It is clear that the plaintiffs have not established title to the entire 25 acres and 20 cents. Consequently, they cannot be granted a declaration regarding title. However, the plaintiffs are given liberty to apply to the authorities to claim title to specific areas which are required for livelihood since the lands were originally classified as "Anadheenam Lands". 45. I hold the plaintiffs cannot seek title for the huge extent of 25 acres and 20 cents and obstruct construction for the benefit of the public being put up. It is stated that the constructions are for Malaria Field Station, Staff Quarters and for the construction of L.P.G., Gas Godowns. It is also clear that in view of the encroachments over the lands, the plaintiffs are also not in possession and enjoyment of the entire area and consequently both declaration and title and injunction cannot be granted to them. Points framed for determination are answered that the plaintiffs have not established title or possession over the entire suit property and that the property has vested with the Government and that the defendants have taken possession after subdividing the property. 46. However, since it is pleaded that the plaintiffs are the descendents of Neelaganda S. Mahadeva Iyer and since the Ramanathapuram Zameendari had recognized his possession, the first defendant is directed to survey the entire land and determine the actual lands over which the plaintiffs are in possession and if the plaintiffs make any representation, seeking allotment of said land consider it in accordance with the rules. 47. 47. With the above observations, this appeal suit is allowed, however, in the circumstances of the case, without costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The judgment and decree of the Sub Judge Ramanathapuram at Madurai dated 25.07.1990 in O.S.No.26 of 1989 is set aside and the suit is dismissed.