JUDGMENT : EASWARAN S., J. The plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of the title, mandatory injunction and prohibitory injunction have come up in these appeals, aggrieved by the findings of the Sub Court, Thiruvalla in A.S Nos.8/2022 and 49/2022. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows:- The plaint schedule property originally belonged to one Mr.Krishnan Nampi @ Vasudevan Nampi, by virtue of Partition Deed Nos.3148/1963 and 3959/1964. Mr.Krishnan Nambi, who is none other than the husband of the 1 st plaintiff, died intestate with respect to the plaint schedule properties and thus the plaintiffs were in possession of the property as his sole legal heirs. The predecessor of the plaintiffs gave certain portion of the property to the Panchayat for construction of an Ayurvedic Dispensary. In 1088 M.E, the plaint schedule property item No.1 having an extent of 12 cents was granted to the Government subject to a condition that the property would be vested with the plaintiff's family if the Government ceased to conduct the school. In 1940, the Government had acquired certain property 100 meter away from the plaint schedule item No.1 property and the school was shifted thereon. Since, the purpose for which the grant was made, was no longer in existence, the plaintiffs demanded the Government to vacate the premises and issued notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendants entered appearance and contested the case and contended that the suit is not maintainable and that the property is absolutely vested with the Government from 1088 M.E onwards. On behalf of the plaintiffs Exts.A1 to A14(c) documents were marked, PW1 to PW3 were examined. On behalf of the defendants Exts.B1 to B9 documents were marked, DW1 to DW3 were examined. Exts.C1 and C1(a) are the report and plan of the Advocate Commissioner. Exts.X1 and X2 were marked as third party exhibits. The Trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence came to a conclusion that the appellants had made out a case for declaration of title and accordingly decreed the suit and directed the defendants 1 to 4 by decree of mandatory injunction to demolish the plaint schedule item No.2 constructions within two months. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendants filed two separate appeals as A.S Nos.8/2022 and 49/2022. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendants filed two separate appeals as A.S Nos.8/2022 and 49/2022. The First Appellate Court found that there is no evidence to show that the surrender of the property to the Government was conditional. The only document which would establish that the property reverted back to the original owner is the Partition Deed in the year 1963 and therefore the First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the Trial Court could not have decreed that suit and accordingly reversed the judgment and decree and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, the present appeals are preferred by the plaintiffs. 3. Heard Shri.V.K.Balachandran, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri.Denny Devassy, the learned Senior Government Pleader appeared on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the First Appellate Court erred egregiously in reversing the findings of the Trial Court. Admittedly, the grant in favour of the Government was a conditional one and it reverted back to the original owners, when the property was acquired by the Government in the year 1940. Even now, the appellants are paying tax in respect of the property and if it is a Government property, the Government would not have accepted the tax. Even in the Revenue Records, the property is still in the name of the plaintiffs as a true owner. 5. On consideration of the submission raised on behalf of the appellants, this Court finds that the appellants have not made out a case for framing of substantial questions of law. The plaintiffs admitted that the property was the subject matter of a grant in favour of the Government in 1088 M.E. Thus for a century, the property was in the possession of the Government, which is indisputable. However, the plaintiffs are now contending that since the property was no longer required by the Government, as the Government acquired certain properties in the year 1940 and shifted the school that was functioning therein, the grant would automatically cease to have effect and the property would revert back to the true owner. However, this Court finds that the said argument is quiet strange inasmuch as no documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs to prove that the grant was a conditional one. However, this Court finds that the said argument is quiet strange inasmuch as no documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs to prove that the grant was a conditional one. Except for a statement in the Partition Deed executed in the year 1963, the appellants were not able to point out any such reservation, while the property was entrusted in favour of the Government. Even assuming that the appellants had any semblance of right over the plaint schedule property by virtue of the Partition Deed executed in the year 1963, no explanation is forthcoming as to why the appellants have filed a suit for declaration only in the year 2015. Moreover, it is seen that the property was within the territorial jurisdiction of erstwhile princely State of Travancore. The appellants admit, that there is a grant in favour of erstwhile State of Travancore. If that be so, on coming into the force of the States Reorgainsation Act, 1956, the property in custody of the erstwhile princely State of Travancore stood vested with the State of Kerala. If that be so, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs had no right title and interest over the property by which the Partition Deed could have been executed in the year 1963. 6. In Rajendra Kumar v. State of Kerala [2025 KLT OnLine 2189], this Court had considered the impact of the States Reorganisation Act and held that the property relinquished in favour of the erstwhile princely State of Tranvancore would devolve upon the successor State namely, the State of Kerala. On considering the facts presented in these cases, this Court is of the considered view that the law laid down by this Court in Rajendra Kumar (supra) would squarely apply to these appeals. Resultandly, this Court finds that no substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the these appeals and accordingly these appeals fail and the same are dismissed. No cost.