Madras High Court
S.Rajmohan vs State Of Tamilnadu Through on 16 June, 2025
S.A.(MD)No.328 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 06.03.2025
Pronounced On : 16.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
S.A.(MD)No.328 of 2018
1.S.Rajmohan
2.S.Rani
3.P.Manosanthiammal
4.P.Anbuchelian
5.P.Meena
6.P.Shanthi
7.P.Surulimani …Appellants/Appellants 1to3 & 5to8/
Plaintiffs1 to 3 & 5 to 8
Vs.
1.State of Tamilnadu through
its District Collector,
Theni District, Theni.
2.The District Forest Officer,
Theni District, Theni.
3.The Forest Ranger,
District Forest Office,
Bodinayakkanur,
Theni District. ... Respondents 1to3/Respondents/
Defendants
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 03:09:06 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.328 of 2018
4.Pankajavalli ... 4th Respondent/4th Appellant/
4th Plaintiff
PRAYER:- Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil
Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2014 made
in A.S.No.4 of 2013 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Theni,
confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2012 made in O.S.No.
114 of 2004 on the file of the District cum Judicial Magistrate,
Bodinayakkanur.
For Appellant : Mr.M.R.Suriya Narayanan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam,
Government Advocate (Civil Side)
for R1 to R3
: Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj for R4
JUDGMENT
Unsuccessful Plaintiffs in O.S.No.114 of 2004 on the file of the
learned District Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanur have
filed this Second Appeal challenging the dismissal of their prayer that the
suit for declaration and injunction for an extent of 16.49 Acres of
Reserve Forest Land and confirmed in AS.No.4 of 2013 on the file of
learned Sub-Judge, Theni.
2/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 03:09:06 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.328 of 2018
2. The Plaintiffs except the 4th plaintiff in O.S.No.114 of 2004 are
the appellants herein. The defendants and the 4th plaintiff in O.S.No.114
of 2004 are the respondents.
3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein after
shall be referred to as per their status/ranking before the trial Court.
4. The brief averments made in the plaint are as follows:-
The plaintiffs stated that the suit scheduled property originally
belonged to Bodinayakanur Zamin. During the Zamin period, assignment
was made in favour of one Perumal Naickar and they had occupied the
said lands and planted Silk Cotton plants, Coffee and Citron Plants by
investing huge amount. On 05.03.1954, the Bodinayakanur Zamin was
taken over by the Government under the Estate Abolition Act, 1948 and
final settlement enquiry was completed as per the Act in the year 1962.
Without knowledge about the proceedings, on the basis of the enjoyment,
the said Perumal Naickar effected registered partition deed on
22.12.1961 and submitted the application to grant Ryoitwari Patta and to
remove the classification “Kadu” and same was declined. Challenging
3/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 03:09:06 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.328 of 2018the same, they had filed a Writ petition before this court and same was
remitted to the government to consider the case of Perumal Naickar.
During the pendency of the same, the sons of the Perumal Naickar sold
the properties to the plaintiffs 2 to 5 by a Sale deed dated 26.07.1969.
The plaintiffs 2 to 5 as purchasers have been in possession and
enjoyment of the suit property filed this suit to declare the suit scheduled
property is their absolute property and permanent injunction restraining
the Government officials interfering with their peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit scheduled property.
5. The brief averments made in the written statement are as
follows:-
The Defendants denied the title and the case of the plaintiffs.
Under the Estate Abolition Act, 1948, the land was taken over in the year
1954 by the Government. On 02.06.1954, the land was declared as
“Reserve Forest’ and brought under the control of Forest Department and
proper notification was also issued on 02.06.1954 and the further
declaration was issued in Government Gazatte as per the Forest Act on
30.04.1977 and also proper revenue declaration with classification
4/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 03:09:06 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.328 of 2018“Kadu” also was made in the “A” Register. They specifically denied the
age of Silk Cotton plants as stated in the plaint and the suit was filed
after 40 years from the date of the proceedings taken under the Estate
Abolition Act and the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and hence, the suit is
obviously barred by limitation. The plaintiffs encroached the lands and
thereafter, they filed Writ Petition in W.P.No.1523 of 1999 to fix a sum of
Rs.500/- as a lease amount per hectare and the same was dismissed.
Further, as per the Tamil Nadu Forest Act once notification was issued,
no one is entitled to claim title over the Reserve Forest Land. Further the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Writ petition No.202 of 1995 specifically
held that title of all the forest lands are vested with the Government.
Therefore, they seek to dismiss the suit.
6.Based on the above said pleading, the trial Court has framed
the following issues:-
1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief
of declaration and consequential permanent injunction
as prayed for in the plaint?
2.Whether the land is encroached?
3.Whether the suit is bad for limitation?
4.To what relief the plaintiff is entitled for?
5/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 03:09:06 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.328 of 2018
7. Before the trial Court on the side of the plaintiffs, the first
plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and another witness was examined as
P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On the side of the defendants, one
person was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 were marked and
also Ex.C.1 to Ex.C3 were marked.
8. The learned Trial Judge, after framing necessary issues and
considering the evidence adduced by both sides, dismissed the suit
holding that the plaintiffs have not established their title to the suit
scheduled property.
9. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiffs filed the appeal suit in
A.S.No.4 of 2013 on the file of learned Sub Judge, Theni, and the learned
1st Appellate Judge also on re-appreciating the evidence and law on the
subject, without finding any merits in the appeal, concurred with the
finding of trial Court’s judgment and dismissed the appeal.
6/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 03:09:06 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.328 of 2018
10. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been preferred by
the plaintiff.
11. This Court framed the following question of law at the time of
admission:-
i) Whether the courts below is correct in holding
that the suit property is a Reserve Forest as against the
records produced by the appellants?.
12.1. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that
both the Courts below without properly considering the documentary
evidence adduced by the appellants to prove the title, erroneously
dismissed the suit holding that they have not established the title to the
suit scheduled property. The Exs.A1 to A8 clearly recognized the title
and possession of the plaintiffs and the same was not properly considered
by both the Courts below. Even though, the land originally belonged to
Bodinayakanur Zamin, and the same was taken over by the Government
under the Estate Abolition Act, 1948. The civil Court has jurisdiction to
decide the independent title of the plaintiffs as per the law laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs.
7/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 03:09:06 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.328 of 2018
Ramalinga Samigal Madam reported in AIR 1976 SC 794, and the
Courts below failed to consider the same in proper manner.
12.2. The learned counsel for the appellants would further submit
that earlier, the vendor of the appellants approached the high Court to
give Ryoitwari Patta and the same was remitted to consider the same
before the authority and hence, there is prima facie title on the basis of
the title deed executed by the vendors in the year 1969. Hence, both the
Courts below have committed error on record and hence, he seeks to
interfere with the judgment of both the Courts below.
13.1. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that
there is no dispute over the proceedings initiated under the Estate
Abolition Act 1948, on 02.06.1954 and also the subsequent declaration
of the Reserve Forest by issuing a suitable notification and in the said
circumstances, without challenging the same, the declaration of title
could not be granted and hence, the same was rightly rejected by both the
Courts below holding that there was no evidence adduced to prove that
the vendor of the plaintiffs had obtained assignment from the
8/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 03:09:06 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.328 of 2018
Bodinayakanur Zamin. No document was produced to show that the
property was acquired by the vendor of the plaintiffs before initiation of
the proceeding under the Estate Abolition Act, 1948.
13.3. The learned counsel for the respondents would also submit
that both the Courts below on appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence found no material to hold the title to the suit scheduled property
and hence, no circumstances were established to interfere with the
concurrent findings.
13.4. The learned counsel for the respondents would also contend
that there is no perversity in the appreciation of both the facts and law
and therefore, he prayed to dismissal of the appeal.
14. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the
materials available on record and also the precedents relied upon by
them.
9/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 03:09:06 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.328 of 2018
15. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit schedule property is
the property of the Bodinayakanur Zamin. One Perumal Naickar is said
to have got assignment from the Bodinayakanur Zamin and enjoyed the
said property. On 05.03.1954, all Zamin lands were taken by the
Government under the Estate Abolition Act. The said Perumal Naickar
without knowledge about the said proceedings had been enjoying the
property and partitioned the property between their family members on
22.12.1961. The said Perumal Naickar made a representation to
re-classify the land as a “Kadu” and grant ryot patta and the same was
declined and hence, he filed the writ petition in W.P.No.2197 of 1964 and
this court remitted it back to the government to consider his claim.
Pending the same, the plaintiffs Nos.2 to 5 purchased the properties on
26.07.1969. On the basis of the same, they claimed the title.
16. Admittedly, there was no document produced before the court
below to prove that the said Perumal Naickar got the assignment from the
Bodinayakanur Zamindar. No document was produced to prove his
possession over the property during the Zamindari period i.e., before the
Government took the lands of Bodinayakanur Zamin under the Estate
10/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 03:09:06 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.328 of 2018
Abolition Act, on 05.03.1954. Even as per the plaintiffs case, the claim of
Perumal Naickar to claim the ryot Patta was not considered on the date of
purchase of the suit schedule property on 26.07.1969. Therefore, they
have not produced any title deed to prove their vendors’ title over the suit
scheduled property.
17. But, they admitted the case of the Government that the land
was taken under the Estate Abolition Act 1948, on 02.06.1954 and
subsequent declaration of the land as “Reserve Forest”. Till date, there
was no challenge of process of declaration of the forest land.
18. It is true that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Ramalinga Samigal
Madam reported in AIR 1976 SC 794, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to
decide the title of the plaintiffs irrespective of the proceedings under the
Estate Abolition Act 1948. But, the plaintiffs have not produced any
document to prove their title and their vendors’ title. Even as per the
averment made in the plaint, they have purchased the property before the
claim of their vendor to get Ryoitwari Patta.
11/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 03:09:06 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.328 of 2018
19. Both the courts considered the entire evidence and discussed
the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in W.P.No.202 of 1995 wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly dealt wirh the nature of forest land and
concluded that plaintiffs have not established the title and possession
over the property.
20. Considering the claim of the plaintiffs over the larger extent of
the forest land, this Court called the District Forest Officer to produce the
file relating to the said land and the District Forest officer produced the
file and it reveals that the lands are Reserved Forest Area and the same
has been maintained as per the Forest Act and as on date, there was no
person is occupying the land. The Forest Department is maintaining the
said land. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of T.N.Godavarman
Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India reported in 2006 5 SCC 28, has issued
a direction to preserve and protect the forest land. Apart from that, in the
latest decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2025 INSC 701 has
reiterated the said direction to preserve and protect the forest land.
12/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 03:09:06 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.328 of 2018
21. In view of the above discussion, this court finds no merits in
the appeal and the plaintiffs have not independently established their title
to the Reserve Forest land through legal documents and oral evidence as
held by both the Courts below. Therefore, the question of law framed by
this Court is answered against the appellants and the Second Appeal is
liable to be dismissed.
22. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed and the judgment
passed by the Subordinate Judge, Theni, in A.S.No.4 of 2013 dated
28.11.2014 confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.114 of
2004 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate,
Bodinayakkanur, dated 17.10.2012, is hereby confirmed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
16.06.2025
1/2
NCC :Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
dss
13/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 03:09:06 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.328 of 2018
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
dss
To
1.The Subordinate Judge,
Theni.
2. The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate,
Bodinayakkanur.
3.The Section Officer,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
S.A.(MD)No.328 of 2018
16.06.2025
14/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 03:09:06 pm )