Point of Law:Forest Land – Adverse possession - plaintiff is claiming the suit lands by way of adverse possession against the forest department and she does not admit the suit lands as the forest lands and title of the forest department over the suit lands, the plea of adverse possession set up by the plaintiff cannot be accepted.”

JUDGMENT :

B.VEERAPPA, J.

The plaintiff filed the present Regular First Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2013 made in O.S.No.98/2008 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of title by way of adverse possession and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties.

2. The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that she has acquired title over the suit schedule properties by way of adverse possession and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession over the suit schedule properties, contending that the suit item No.1 measuring 18 acres 5 guntas of coffee land in Sy.No.188 and 17 acres 20 guntas of coffee land in Sy.No.189 and suit item No.2 measuring 33 acres 8 guntas of coffee land in Sy.Nos.185, 188, 189 and 229 of Heruru village, Megunda Hobli, Koppa Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District, morefully described in the schedule to the plaint within the reputed boundaries of Nilgiri Coffee Estate owned by the plaintiff. The said lands are revenue lands and the plaintiff’s predecessors in title had raised the coffee plantation with the shade trees about hundred years back and are part and parcel of the plaintiff’s estate known as ‘Nilgiri Coffee Estate’ and has been enjoyed as such, as of right, in a peaceful manner and without let or hindrance by the Government or any third party to their knowledge. To prove her possession, the plaintiff produced the notarized copy of the survey report of the ADLR, Chikkamagaluru with the plan attached thereto and the affidavit dated 06.04.1994 of plaintiff’s predecessor in title clearly affirming that the plantation described in the schedule to the plaint has been part and parcel of plaintiff’s Nilgiri Estate for over hundred years and as such the owners thereof from time to time including the plaintiff and they have perfected title by adverse possession, prescription and limitation against the Government and in particular, against the defendants.

3. It is further contended that the plantation described in the schedule to the plaint has at all time being classified in the revenue records and in the forest records as revenue land, never as forest land, as can be seen from the statement showing Section 4 declared under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 areas included in forest reserve as per Deputy Commissioner Notification dated 05.06.2002, wherein the plaintiff’s survey numbers are not included; the RTC records showing private ownership of land out of the survey numbers involved in plaintiff’s property; the plan showing levy of T.T fine in respect of the property in the neighborhood and relating to the survey numbers involved in plaintiff’s property; however, the plaintiff’s portion of the survey number is not involved in those T.T. proceedings; records of right showing that Sy.Nos.185, 188, 189 and 229 are described as non forest lands and the index of lands where saguvali chits have been freely granted to portions of land involved in survey numbers of the plaintiff’s property.

4. It is further contended that the plaintiff and her predecessors in title have been in possession of the suit schedule properties for more than 100 years by adverse possession to the interest of the State. When the first defendant sent a notice dated 06.10.2008, claiming that the suit schedule properties are forest lands and that they are Government lands and that unless a satisfactory reply is sent, the plaintiff will be forcibly evicted from the properties, the plaintiff promptly replied to the said notice on 27.10.2008 stating that the suit schedule lands are revenue lands and not forest lands. In spite of the same, the defendants are interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and cause of action to file the suit arose on 06.10.2008, when the first defendant sent the notice. Hence, the plaintiff filed t