Government assignment and consistent revenue records establish title against uncorrelated and unproven private claims.

The plaintiff, an ex-military serviceman, applied for the assignment of Government poramboke land in 1985

Following the payment of market value, the Tahsildar of Sattur assigned 58 cents in Survey Nos. 108/1 and 108/4 to the plaintiff, issuing a "D" Form patta and delivering possession

The defendant resisted, claiming the land was private patta land devolved to him via an oral partition based on a 1935 sale deed

The defendant unsuccessfully challenged the assignment before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Revenue Officer

The Trial Court decreed the suit for declaration and injunction in favor of the plaintiff

However, the First Appellate Court reversed this decision, prompting the current second appeal

1. Whether the plaintiff established valid title and continuous possession of the suit property through Government assignment and revenue records

2. Whether the defendant proved a superior title via oral partition and prior sale deeds in the absence of correlating survey numbers and legal heirship certificates

3. Whether the First Appellate Court's reversal of the trial decree was perverse due to the misappreciation of evidence and the finality of revenue proceedings

The court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code to review a perverse finding of fact by a lower appellate court

It applied the principle of finality in administrative law, holding that revenue assignments not challenged in a civil court against the State become binding

Regarding the law of evidence, the court followed the rule that a party claiming title through succession or oral partition must produce corroborative evidence, such as legal heirship certificates or independent witness testimony, and must successfully correlate old and new survey numbers to identify the property

The Court found that the plaintiff's title was firmly established by Ex.A1 (Assignment Order), Ex.A2 ("D" Form Patta), and Ex.A3–A4 (Kist receipts), which proved both the grant and continuous possession

The Court observed that the defendant failed to provide any documentary evidence to correlate old paimash numbers with the current survey numbers or to prove his lineage and the alleged oral partition

Notably, the defendant did not initiate a suit against the Government to set aside the assignment after his administrative revisions were dismissed, thereby creating an estoppel against his claim

The Court concluded that the First Appellate Court committed a "serious error" by ignoring the finalized revenue proceedings and valid assignment in favor of unproven oral assertions, rendering its judgment perverse

The Court restored the judgment and decree of the Trial Court (Additional District Munsif Court, Sattur), declaring the plaintiff as the lawful owner and granting a permanent injunction against the defendant

The Court held that the plaintiff’s possession was legally protected by a valid, unchallenged Government assignment