respect of the suit tank one way or the other and continue to exercise the same in a lawful manner during the pendency of the suit proceeding laid by him, at least, seeking protection of the same, Kuppusamy Pillai would have urged the Court to grant the appropriate reliefs in his proceedings. However, as abovenoted, the appellate Court has in toto rejected the suit laid by the Kuppusamy Pillai and in such view of the matter, it is found that inasmuch as the fishery right had not been exercised by Kuppusamy Pillai in respect of the suit tank in a lawful manner, during the pendency of the abovesaid proceedings, no relief has been granted by the appellate Court with reference to the same in any manner. Furthermore, there is no proof placed on the part of the plaintiff that after the disposal of the appeal in A.S.No.66 of 1939 dated 18.03.1940, Kuppusamy Pillai had still continued to exercise the fishery right in respect of the suit tank one way or the other by obtaining necessary permission / licence from the Government in the manner to known to law. When the suit tank is found to be belonging to the Government and the same is found to be vested with the Municipality and the claim of fishery rights by Kuppusamy Pillai in respect of the suit tank cannot be a permanent feature or right entitling him to exercise the same in respect of the suit tank and on the other hand, as determined by the trial Court, the said fishery right could be exercised by Kuppusamy Pillai only on the conditions set out by the Government or Municipality from time to time and accordingly, when there is no material placed on the part of the plaintiff that even after the disposal of A.S.No.66 of 1939, Kuppusamy Pillai had been exercising the fishery right in respect of the suit tank in any manner as per law, his further case that Kuppusamy Pillai had conveyed the said fishery right to him by way of Ex.A2 sale deed as such cannot be countenanced in any manner. When it is found that the fishery right in respect of the suit tank belonging to the Government cannot be owned by Kuppusamy Pillai and could be exercised by him as per the conditions set out by the Government or Municipality from time to time one way or the other and when as above noted, there is no material at all placed on the part of the plaintiff that his vendor had exercised the said right after the disposal of the first appeal in A.S.No.66/1939, there is no material placed on the part of the plaintiff as to how his vendor could have validly conveyed the abovesaid right to the plaintiff by way of Ex.A2 sale transaction, claiming that he has absolute right in respect of the same over the suit tank. As rightly determined by the trial Court, on a perusal of the recitals contained in Ex.A2 sale deed, the plaintiff's vendor Kuppusamy Pillai had claimed that he has been exercising the fishery right in respect of the suit tank absolutely by having ownership over the same by obtaining patta etc., and on the otherhand, when the claim of ownership of Kuppusamy Pillai in respect of the suit bank has been negatived by the appellate Court in A.S.No.66 of 1939 and
