JUDGMENT : The second plaintiff in O.S.No.492 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif Court cum Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi, is the appellant herein. Along with one Narayanan, the said suit was filed for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the local panchayat from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The defendant panchyat submitted that the suit property is a natham poromboke and that it belongs to the local panchayat. The suit property was never in the enjoyment of the plaintiffs or their predecessor-in-title. The local body is utilizing the suit property for dumping garbage. According to the defendant, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief. Based on the divergent pleadings, the trial court framed the necessary issues. The first plaintiff examined himself as P.W.2, while the appellant's husband was examined as P.W.1. Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were marked. On the side of the defendant, panchayat staff were examined. Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were marked. An advocate commissioner was appointed and his report and plan were marked as Court Ex.X1 and Ex.X2. After a consideration of the evidence on record, by judgment and decree dated 30.11.1998, the suit was dismissed. Challenging the same, the plaintiffs filed A.S.No.18 of 1999 before the Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli. By judgment and decree dated 22.04.2002, the decision of the trial court was confirmed and the first appeal was dismissed. Challenging the same, this second appeal came to be filed by the second plaintiff. This was because during the pendency of the suit, the first plaintiff had parted with his right in the suit property in favour of the second plaintiff. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the judgment and decree of the courts below are sustainable in law as they not considered the entire evidence available on record correctly and the question of law applicable to the facts of the case?” 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds and called upon this court to answer the substantial question of law in favour of the appellant and decree the suit as prayed for by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the panchayat/first respondent submitted that the very framing of the suit was improper. The suit property is a vacant site. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the panchayat/first respondent submitted that the very framing of the suit was improper. The suit property is a vacant site. The suit property has been used by the local body as a dumping site. A perusal of the report of the advocate commissioner would show that the suit property is situated outside the compound wall of the plaintiffs. If the plaintiffs had sought the relief of declaration, it would be a different matter altogether. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for injunction simpliciter. That the suit property has been put to use as dumping yard has been amply established by examining sanitary workers employed by the panchayat. That is why, the courts below have concurrently found against the plaintiffs. He submitted that exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of C.P.C., the impugned judgment and decree do not warrant any interference. 4. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the evidence on record. The suit property is comprised in Survey No.53/1 and measures east-west 22 feet and north-south 95 feet and is situated to the north of Ariyalur road and east of Perumalkovil road and west of Sethuraman's house and south of plaintiff's property. In other words, the plaintiff was already owning adjacent property, when the suit property was purchased. According to the plaintiffs, the property originally belonged to one Vembu Sastri and his sons. Vide sale deed dated 30.07.1945, he had sold the said property in favour of one Krishna Moorthy Iyer. The said sale deed was marked as Ex.A3. The schedule of property set out in Ex.A3 tallies with the suit property. Ex.A3 describes the suit property as comprised in natham survey No.53/1. Under Ex.A2, dated 27.08.1966, the first plaintiff Narayanan had purchased the suit property. Ex.A2 also describes the suit property as comprised in natham survey No.53/1. From the said Narayanan, the appellant herein had purchased vide sale deed dated 25.02.1991 during the pendency of the suit. It is well settled that the property categorized as natham will belong to the possessor and not the Government (vide 2004 (3) CTC 270 Executive Officer, Kadthur Town Panchayat Vs. V.Swaminathan). 5. In the case on hand, it has been amply established that the suit property was dealt with by the private individuals under more than one sale deed. Ex.A3 is a document of the year 1945. V.Swaminathan). 5. In the case on hand, it has been amply established that the suit property was dealt with by the private individuals under more than one sale deed. Ex.A3 is a document of the year 1945. Ex.A2 is a document of the year 1966. A local body being a state instrumentality is expected to conduct itself in a fair and reasonable manner. Merely because there was some empty vacant ground available, it could not have arbitrarily used as a dumping yard. It was open to the local body to acquire the said site after paying due compensation. The courts below after correctly noting that the plaintiffs had established ownership over the suit property and after rejecting the documentary evidence adduced by the local body, had still chosen to non-suit the plaintiffs. 6. I am not able to appreciate the approach adopted by the courts below. Ex.A4 is the rough patta issued in favour of the plaintiffs. It could not have been rejected merely because it came into existence during the pendency of the suit. Ex.A4 should be seen as a continuation of the other three documents. If the case of the plaintiffs is predicated entirely on Ex.A4, the courts below could have declined to take it into account on the ground that it is the post-suit document. That is not the case here. When the plaintiff is tracing his title right upto the year 1945 and patta was issued in his favour, the courts below ought to have accorded due respect to it. Since the property is a natham and since the plaintiff had clearly established and proved her title thereon, she is definitely entitled to the relief of injunction. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellant. The second appeal is allowed. No costs.