J.B. Koshy, J.

Appellant in this case filed an application under S.8 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting & assignment) Act, 1971 for a declaration that the property described in the petition is not vested in the Government under the above Act. The above application was rejected on the question of time bar. Along with the application the appellant filed a petition to consider the case as not time barred case because at the time when the Act came into force the appellant was a minor and when the notification was published also he was a minor. According to the appellant he filed a petition in time i.e. immediately after he attained majority, but that was not accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the matter as time barred. S.8 of the Act enable a person to file claims within such period as may be prescribed by the Tribunal for a decision of the dispute. R.3 of The Kerala Private Forests (Tribunal) Rules provides that such an application should be filed within sixty days from 6th August, 1991 or from the date of publication of the notification under sub-r.(2) of R.2-A in respect of the land to which the dispute relates whichever is later. Tribunal's power to condone the delay or prohibition against condoning delay is mentioned in the Act. According to the appellant when the Act came into force and when the notification was published he was a minor and therefore he is entitled to apply in view of S.6 of the Limitation Act. S.6(1) of the Limitation Act reads as follows:

"6. Legal disability:- (1) where a person entitled to institute a suit or make an application for the execution of a decree is, at the time from which the prescribed period is to be reckoned, a minor or insane, or an idiot, he may institute the suit or make the application within the same period after the disability has ceased, as would otherwise have been allowed from the time specified therefor in the third column of the Schedule."

2. The only question to be decided in this case is whether S.6 of the Limitation Act is applicable in a proceedings under the Act and Rules in question. A Division Bench of this Court in V.S. Joseph v. State of Kerala (1987 (1) K.L.T. 651) took a view that Forest Tribunal under Private Forests (Vesting & assignment ) Act, 1971 cannot condone delay in filing the applications before it as Forest Tribunal is not a civil court and S.5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable. The same decision was followed by another Division Bench of this Court in Sadasiva Saralai v. Government of Kerala (1958 (2) K.L.T. 610). The Division Bench in the above case followed the Full Bench decision of this court in Jokkitn Fernandez, v. Amina Kunhi Umma (1973 K.L.T. 138) where in it was held that Rent Control Appellate Court is not a court and therefore provisions of Limitation Act is not applicable.

3. It is seen that in the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in 1973 KLT 138 (supra) was overruled by the Supreme Court in Mukri Gopalan v. C.P. Aboobacker (1995 (2) KLT 205 = A.I.R.1995 S.C. 2272) in which the Supreme Court held as follows:

"Before parting with the discussion on this question we may also refer to one submission of Shri Nariman. He submitted that Ss.4 to 24 of the Limitation Act would apply to Civil Courts as duly constituted under the Civil Procedure Code and if that is so even if they are to be made applicable to suit, appeal or application governed by periods of limitation prescribed by any special or local law, they necessarily require such suit, appeal or application to be filed under special or local law before full-fledged Civil Courts as otherwise Ss.4 to24 by themselves would not apply to them. It is difficult to agree. It has to be kept in view that S.29(2) gets attracted for computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal or application to be filed before authorities under special or local law if the conditions laid down in the said provision are satisfied and once they get satisfied the provisions c