Madhavan Nair, J.
1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. They filed a suit as representing the inhabitants of a village for a declaration that five cents of land mentioned in the plaint belongs to them and also for possession of the same from the defendants after cancellation of a grant made by the 1st defendant (the Government) under Dharkast rules to the 2nd defendant. The plaintiffs contended that the property belonged to the village and so the Government had no right to grant it to the second defendant.
2. The important question raised in the case was whether the suit land was communal land as alleged in the plaint. Admittedly it is registered as natham in the Settlement Register. The plaintiffs were' able to prove that the site was used for the village cattle to gather in the early morning for over sixty years and also that, people used to assemble on the site during festivals in the adjoining temple. It has been held by this Court, see Collector of Godwvari District v. Pedda Rengayya (1903) 4 M.L.T. 440 and The Taluk Board, Dindigul v. Venkataramier : (1923)45MLJ333 , that such user is not intended to deprive the Revenue authorities of their right to deal with property under Dharkast rule. In order to establish the plaintiff's right to the property there must be something-more than these acts of user. There must be evidence that the land in question was dedicated or set apart as a cattle-stand or for any purpose connected with the temple. Both the Lower Courts have found that there is no evidence of dedication in this case. Concurring with the opinion of the Lower Courts I must, therefore, hold that the plaintiffs have not made out that the inhabitants of the village are entitled to the suit property with absolute proprietary rights, nor is there any evidence to show that they have established a right of easement over it.
3. Since the plaintiffs have no right to the property I do not think they are entitled to call in question the action of the Government in making the grant to the 2nd defendant. It is argued that even if the plaintiffs have no right they are entitled to challenge the validity of the grant. It has been held in this Court that the action of Revenue authorities falling within their jurisdiction cannot be questioned in Civil Courts, see Mathuveera Vandayan v. The Secretary of State for India I.L.R. (1906) Mad. 270. The decision in The Secretary of State for India in Council v. Kasturi Reddi : (1902)12MLJ453 cited by the learned Advocate for the appellant does not support him. What was decided there was that 'when a person claims that a grant has been made to him by an officer on behalf of the Crown, the mere fact that the alleged grant purports to have been made under the Dharkast rules does not affect the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to determine whether a grant has been made which would bind the Crown or any one claiming under it subsequent to such grant.' In view of the finding that the plaintiffs have not established their right to the property that principle cannot be applied in this case. In these circumstances I dismiss the second appeal with costs.