JUDGMENT (Prayers: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2000 in A.S.No.31 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge at Thanjavur reversing the judgment and decree dated 24.11.1997 made in O.S.No.39 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvaiyaru. Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2000 in A.S.No.29 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge at Thanjavur reversing the judgment and decree dated 24.11.1997 made in O.S.No.208 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvaiyaru.) Common Judgment: S.A. No. 751 of 2001 1.The plaintiffs are the appellants. 2. The plaintiffs had filed O.S.No.39 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction for Survey No.269/4. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court as prayed for. The defendants had filed A.S.No.31 of 2000 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Thanjavur. The learned Subordinate Judge was pleased to allow the appeal and dismissed the suit. As against the same, the plaintiffs have filed the above second appeal. S.A.No.752 of 2001 3. The plaintiff had filed O.S.No.208 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru for the relief of permanent injunction not to disturb his possession with regard to Survey No.362/18. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court. The defendants had filed A.S.No.29 of 1999 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Thanjavur. The learned Subordinate Judge was pleased to allow the appeal and dismissed the suit. As against the same, the present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. DISCUSSION IN S.A.No.751 of 2001 4. The above second appeal arises out of O.S.No.39 of 1994. The plaintiffs had contended that the suit schedule property is the exclusive enjoyment of the plaintiffs and they have constructed a cattle shed in the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs had further claimed that there was a dispute with the southern owner by name Shanmugam and a decree for declaration and recovery of possession was decided in favour of the plaintiffs in A.S.No.17 of 1987 under Exhibit A2 and the plaintiffs had taken possession under Exhibit A5. The plaintiffs had further claimed that there was a dispute with the southern owner by name Shanmugam and a decree for declaration and recovery of possession was decided in favour of the plaintiffs in A.S.No.17 of 1987 under Exhibit A2 and the plaintiffs had taken possession under Exhibit A5. The plaintiffs had further contended that the defendants namely the revenue authorities had illegally entered into a property and demolished the southern wall of the plaintiffs' house with police help. Since the suit schedule property is classified as Natham, the same does not vest with the Government and the defendants have no right whatsoever to disturb the exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. Hence, the present suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. 5.The defendants namely the revenue authorities had filed a detailed written statement contending that though the suit property was Natham property, they were acquired as per orders of the Government and they were reclassified as dry waste. Thereafter, the said land was distributed to 16 landless poor adi-dravidar people for constructing houses in R.S.No.271. According to the defendants, R.S.No.271/16 is the street which lies on the north-south and pathway on the east-west was classified as pathway up to R.S.No.269/4 which is the suit schedule property. According to the defendants, the suit schedule property is the only pathway for the houses allotted to the poor adi-dravidars to reach the main road. The defendants had further contended that the plaintiffs have encroached over the suit pathway and they had put a construction. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence mostly relied upon Exhibits B1 to B5 to arrive at a finding that no lane is available in the FMB sketch or revenue records and hence, the contention of the defendants/ revenue authorities that the plaintiffs have encroached upon a pathway has not been proved. The trial Court also relied upon Exhibits A1 and A5 judgments which are the decree and delivery receipts in A.S.No.17 of 1987 to uphold the title of the plaintiffs. Based upon the said findings, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. 7. The First Appellate Court rejected Exhibit B1 judgment on the ground that the Government is not a party to the said proceedings. Based upon the said findings, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. 7. The First Appellate Court rejected Exhibit B1 judgment on the ground that the Government is not a party to the said proceedings. That apart, the said dispute is between two private parties and the same is not binding upon the Government. Exhibits A2 and A3 are the commissioner's report and plan filed in the previous proceedings. The First Appellate Court found that since Exhibit A1 is not binding upon the Government, Exhibits A2 and A3 cannot be relied upon by the plaintiffs in the present suit. The First Appellate Court further found that the plaintiff is said to have taken delivery of the property on 16.12.1973. However, the present suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction has been filed in the year 1994 before expiry of 30 years period of limitation. Hence, even assuming that the plaintiffs have taken possession pursuant to Exhibit A5 delivery note, they have not acquired title as against the Government. The plaintiffs have not produced any document to show that they are having title or legal possession over the suit property. Based upon the said findings, the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. As against the said judgment and decree, the present second appeal has been filed. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants had further contended that the plaintiffs had produced Exhibit A1 judgement and Exhibit A2 Commissioner's report and Exhibit A5 delivery note to establish their title and possession over the suit schedule property. The learned counsel for the appellants had further contended that the First Appellate Court had erroneously arrived at a finding that the judgment in A.S.No.17 of 1987 is not binding upon the Government. The learned counsel had further contended that in the written statement, the defendants /revenue authorities have specifically admitted that the suit schedule property in Survey No.269/4 is a Natham poramboke. When it is a Natham poramboke, it is settled position of law, the said property does not vest with the Government. The first occupier of the property is the owner of the property and he is entitled for the revenue patta. 9. When it is a Natham poramboke, it is settled position of law, the said property does not vest with the Government. The first occupier of the property is the owner of the property and he is entitled for the revenue patta. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants had further contended that the First Appellate Court had failed to see that the revenue records produced by the defendants from Exhibits B1 to B5 will clearly disclose that there is no lane or pathway in Survey No.269/4. When the revenue records do not disclose any lane or pathway, the contention of the Government that the plaintiff had encroached upon the pathway is not legally sustainable. He had further contended that the trial Court after careful analysis of the pleadings and evidence, has arrived at a finding that the plaintiffs have established their title and possession over the suit schedule property. On the other hand, the First Appellate Court has chosen to reject the judgment in the previous proceedings and has simply relied upon the revenue records which does not disclose pathway in the suit survey number. Hence, he prayed for allowing the second appeal. 10. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents had contended that the judgment and decree in A.S.No.17 of 1987 will not be binding upon the Government, since the Government is not a party to the said suit. Even assuming that the plaintiffs have taken possession pursuant to the decree in the previous proceedings, the plaintiffs have not acquired title by adverse possession. That apart, the suit survey number has been classified as a pathway for the adi-dravidars for whom the plots have been allotted under the scheme. Hence, any attempt made by the plaintiffs to claim title to the suit pathway would affect the rights of the adi-dravidar people. Hence, he contended that the First Appellate Court had rightly rejected the claim of the plaintiffs. 11. I have considered the submissions made on either side. 12. The plaintiffs have come out with a specific case that they are the owners of the suit Survey No.269/4 and they are in possession of the said property. Hence, the entire burden is upon them to establish the same. The plaintiffs have mostly relied upon Exhibit A1 judgment in A.S.No.17 of 1987 to impress upon the Court that they have got title over the suit schedule property. Hence, the entire burden is upon them to establish the same. The plaintiffs have mostly relied upon Exhibit A1 judgment in A.S.No.17 of 1987 to impress upon the Court that they have got title over the suit schedule property. A perusal of Exhibit A1 will indicate that the Government is not a party to the said proceedings. It was between the two private parties making a rival claim over Survey No.269/4. The learned Subordinate Judge in A.S.No.17 of 1987 has chosen to hold that the present plaintiffs have got title over the suit Survey Number and has also granted a decree for recovery of possession. The present plaintiffs have chosen to take delivery under Exhibit A5 on 16.12.1973. When the Government is not a party to the previous suit, the title declared in favour of the plaintiffs in the said suit could only be used as against the defendants in the said suit and it is not binding upon the Government. Hence, the decree passed in the said suit will not confer any title upon the present plaintiffs. That apart, the plaintiffs did not have any possession over the said Survey number till they have taken delivery on 16.12.1973. The present suit has been filed in the year 1994. Hence, the plaintiffs could not be heard to say that they have acquired title by adverse possession as against the Government. 13. A perusal of Exhibits B1 to B5 will indicate that the Survey No. 269/4 has been classified as a pathway. Though originally it was a Natham property, the same was acquired by the Government and later, it was plotted out and handed over to 16 adi-dravidars' family for construction of houses. After acquisition was made by the Government, the classification of the land gets automatically altered and thereafter, it has been classified as adi-dravidar Residential Colony. At the time of allotting plots, the present suit survey number, namely 269/4 has been classified as pathway meant for adi-dravidars' family who have been allotted plots. Hence, it is evident that the plaintiffs are attempting to usrup the pathway belonging to other allottees under the guise that it is a Natham property. 14. The trial Court without properly appreciating the binding nature of Exhibit A1 judgment, has granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. Hence, it is evident that the plaintiffs are attempting to usrup the pathway belonging to other allottees under the guise that it is a Natham property. 14. The trial Court without properly appreciating the binding nature of Exhibit A1 judgment, has granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. The trial Court has also erred in relying upon the FMB sketch in arriving at a finding that there is no pathway at all. However, the First Appellate Court has properly considered the legal effect of Exhibit A1 judgment and found that the suit Survey No.269/4 has been classified as pathway. Hence, I find that the plaintiffs have not established their title or possession over the suit schedule property. The First Appellate Court has rightly reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. 15. In view of the above said discussion, the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court are confirmed. S.A.No.751 of 2001 stands dismissed. No costs. DISCUSSION IN S.A.No.752 of 2001 : 16. The plaintiff had contended that the suit schedule property is a Natham property and she was granted patta under Exhibit A4 by the Government for Survey No.362/18. The defendants who are private parties are attempting to disturb her possession. Hence, she had prayed for a decree for permanent injunction. 17. The defendants had contended that it is a pathway and the plaintiff has no right whatsoever over the suit schedule property. 18. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence relied upon Exhibit A4 patta granted in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit as prayed for. 19. The First Appellate court after dismissing A.S.No.31 of 2000 ( arising out of O.S.No.39 of 1994) without independently considering A.S.No.29 of 1999 ( arising out of O.S.No.208 of 1994) has allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. 20. The learned counsel for the appellant had contended that the First Appellate Court has only discussed about the merits of A.S.No.31 of 2000 and thereafter, allowed the appeal. However, there is no discussion whatsoever with regard to the merits of A.S.No.29 of 1999. The learned counsel had further contended that both the suits are completely different and unless both of them are independently considered, a correct decision cannot be arrived at. However, there is no discussion whatsoever with regard to the merits of A.S.No.29 of 1999. The learned counsel had further contended that both the suits are completely different and unless both of them are independently considered, a correct decision cannot be arrived at. Just because the plaintiff in O.S.No.208 of 1994 is the wife of the plaintiff in O.S.No.39 of 1994, the dismissal of O.S.No.39 of 1994 will not automatically result in dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.208 of 1994. The learned counsel for the appellant had further contended that admittedly the suit schedule property was originally a Natham property which was later acquired by the Government and patta has been granted by the Government in favour of the plaintiff under Exhibit A4. On the other hand, the defendants in O.S.No.208 of 1994 have not produced any rival document relating to the title or possession over Survey No.362/18. Hence, the First Appellate Court had erred in simply allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit in O.S.No.208 of 1994. 21. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents have contended that the First Appellate Court only after careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence has reversed the findings of the trial Court and hence, no interference as called for in the second appeal. 22. I have considered the submissions made on either side. 23. Admittedly, the plaintiff in O.S.No.208 of 1994 namely Thangaponnu has been granted patta by the authorities under Exhibit A4 for suit survey number namely 362/18 for an extent of 0.1.50 ares. The defendants in the said suit have not filed any document whatsoever contradicting the title of the plaintiffs or possession of the plaintiffs. The trial court had independently considered the claim of the plaintiff in Paragraph No.16 of the judgment and has proceeded to grant decree in favour of the plaintiffs. However, the First Appellate Court has discussed about the merits of the other suit namely O.S.No.39 of 1994 and has proceeded to dismiss O.S.No.208 of 1994 without any independent discussion on merits. Hence, I find that the First Appellate court being a last Court of facts, had failed to properly appreciate the contention of the parties. When the defendants have not produced any rival claim or any documents to establish their title over the suit schedule property, the First Appellate Court had erred in reversing the said judgment. Hence, I find that the First Appellate court being a last Court of facts, had failed to properly appreciate the contention of the parties. When the defendants have not produced any rival claim or any documents to establish their title over the suit schedule property, the First Appellate Court had erred in reversing the said judgment. It is also admitted by the defendants that the suit schedule properties are Natham proamboke which were later acquired by the Government and housing plots were allotted to adi-dravidar people. Once such allottee is the plaintiff and the patta has been granted under Exhibit A4 in favour of the plaintiff. In such circumstances, the plaintiff has established her legal possession over the suit schedule property. 24. In view of the above said discussion, the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court are set aside. The judgment and decree of the trial Court is restored. The second appeal is allowed. No costs. 25. In the result, S.A.No.751 of 2001 stands dismissed. S.A.No.752 of 2001 stands allowed. No costs.