Madras High Court
Unknown vs State Of Tamilnadu Through on 16 June, 2025
S.A.(MD)No.63 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.63 of 2018
M/s.S.V.N.Surulivel Nadar Bross Firm
Regn.No.489/1950
through its partner,
Rajmohan …Appellant/Appellant/Plaintiff
(Cause title accepted vide Court order dated 19.10.2016 made in
CMP(MD)No.9839 of 2016 in SA(MD)SRNo.30720 of 2016 by SSSRJ)
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/Respondent/
Defendant
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 03:09:06 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.63 of 2018
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.44 of 2013 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Theni,
confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2012 made in O.S.No.
113 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
JUDGMENT
Unsuccessful Plaintiff in O.S.No.113 of 2004 on the file of the
learned District Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanur has filed
this Second Appeal challenging the dismissal of his prayer that the suit
for declaration and injunction for an extent of 27.39 Acres of Reserve
Forest Land and confirmed in AS.No.44 of 2013 on the file of learned
Sub-Judge, Theni.
2. The Plaintiff in O.S.No.113 of 2004 is the appellant herein. The
defendants 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.
2/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 03:09:06 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.63 of 2018
4. The brief averments made in the plaint are as follows:-
The plaintiff stated that the suit schedule property originally
belonged to Bodinayakanur Zamin. During the Zamin period, assignment
was made in favour of Ramasamy Naidu and his wife and they had
occupied the said land and planted Silk Cotton Trees by investing huge
amount. On 05.03.1954, the Bodinayakanur Zamin was taken over by the
Government under the Estate Abolition Act 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 Ramasamy Naidu
and his wife sold the properties to M/sChookkar Thevar, Pojaiyan
Settiyar, Ponnaiyan @ Venkitasamy Nadar and Krishnasamy Nadar and
they were in possession and enjoyment of the property. From the legal
heirs of Pojaiyan Settiyar, Ponnaiyan @ Venkitasamy Nadar and
Krishnasamy Nadar, the plaintiff purchased ¾ of the suit schedule
property on 30.03.1977 and also purchased the remaining ¼ of the suit
schedule property from the legal heirs of Chokkar Thevar on 31.05.1977.
The suit schedule property is a Ryoitwari land and the same was wrongly
classified as “Kadu”. The defendants interfered with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the property of the plaintiff. Hence, the
3/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 03:09:06 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.63 of 2018plaintiff as a purchaser has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit
property and filed the suit to declare the suit scheduled property as his
absolute property and sought for permanent injunction restraining the
Government officials interfering with his 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 plaintiff. Under
the Estate Abolition Act 1948, the land was taken 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 also issued on 02.06.1954 and the further declaration issued
in Government Gazatte as per the Forest Act on 30.04.1977 and also
proper revenue declaration with classification “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, suit is obviously barred by limitation. The
4/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 03:09:06 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.63 of 2018plaintiff encroached the lands and thereafter, 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 is issued, no one is entitled to claim title
over the Reserve Forest Land. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
WP.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?
7. Before the trial Court on the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff
examined himself as P.W.1 and another witness was examined as P.W.2
and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On the side of the defendants, one
5/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 03:09:06 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.63 of 2018
witness was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.B.1 & Ex.B.2 were marked and
Ex.C.1 & Ex.C2 were also marked.
8. The learned Trial Judge, after framing the 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 plaintiff has filed the appeal suit in
A.S.No.44 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 the trial Court’s judgment and dismissed the appeal.
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:-
6/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 03:09:06 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.63 of 2018
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 appellant would submit that both
the Courts below without properly considering the documentary evidence
adduced by the appellant to prove the title, erroneously dismissed the suit
holding that he has not established the title to the suit schedule property.
The Exs.A1 to A6 clearly recognized the title and possession of the
plaintiff 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 plaintiff as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Ramalinga
Samigal Madam reported in AIR 1976 SC 794, and the Court below
failed to consider the same in proper manner.
13.1.The learned counsel for the respondents would further submit
that there is no dispute over the proceedings initiated under the Estate
7/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 03:09:06 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.63 of 2018
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 no evidence was adduced to prove that the
vendor of the plaintiff had obtained assignment from the Bodinayakanur
Zamin. No document was produced to show that the property was
acquired by the vendor of the plaintiff before the initiation of the
proceeding under the Estate Abolition Act, 1948.
13.2. 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, there is no circumstance to interfere with the concurrent
findings.
13.3. 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.
8/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 03:09:06 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.63 of 2018
14. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the
materials available on record and also the precedents relied upon by
them.
15. The case of the plaintiff 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, the entire Zamin lands were taken by the
Government under the Estate Abolition Act. Without knowledge about
the proceedings, on the basis of the enjoyment, the Ramasamy Naidu and
his wife sold the properties to one M/s.Chookkar Thevar, Pojaiyan
Settiyar, Ponnaiyan @ Venkitasamy Nadar and Krishnasamy Nadar and
they were in possession and enjoyment of the property. Thereafter, from
the legal heirs of the said Pojaiyan Settiyar, Ponnaiyan @ Venkitasamy
Nadar and Krishnasamy Nadar, the plaintiff purchased ¾ of the suit
schedule property on 30.03.1974 and he also purchased the remaining ¼
of the suit schedule property from the legal heirs of Chokkar Thevar on
31.05.1977. On the basis of the same, he claimed the title.
9/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 03:09:06 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.63 of 2018
16. Admittedly, no document was produced before the Court below
to prove that the said Ramasamy Naidu and his wife got the assignment
from the Bodinayakanur Zamindar. No document was produced to prove
their possession over the property during the Zamindari i.e., before the
Government took the lands of Bodinayakanur Zamin under the Estate
Abolition Act, on 05.03.1954. Even as per the plaintiff case, the suit
schedule property is a Ryoitwari land and the same was wrongly
classified as “Kadu”. Therefore, they have not produced any title deed to
prove his vendors’ title over the suit schedule property.
17. But, he 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 plaintiff irrespective of the proceedings under the
10/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 03:09:06 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.63 of 2018
Estate Abolition Act 1948. But, the plaintiff has not produced any
document to prove his title and his vendors’ title.
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 with the nature of forest land and
concluded that plaintiff has not established the title and possession over
the property.
20. Considering the claim of the plaintiff 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 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.
11/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 03:09:06 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.63 of 2018
21. In view of the discussion, this court finds no merits in the
appeal and the plaintiff has not independently established his 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 appellant 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.44 of 2013 dated
28.11.2014 confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.113 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
2/2
NCC :Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
dss
12/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 03:09:06 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.63 of 2018
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.
13/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 03:09:06 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.63 of 2018
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
dss
S.A.(MD)No.63 of 2018
16.06.2025
14/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 03:09:06 pm )