The main legal point established is the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to review its original order under S.8-B and the requirement of good faith for the application of S.41 of the Transfer of Property Act.

K.K. Usha, J.

Appellants are the supplementary respondents in LA. 247/87 in O.A. 170/77 before the Forest Tribunal, Palghat. They challenge the order passed by the Tribunal by which the application for review filed by the Custodian of Vested Forests and Conservator of Forests and State of Kerala under S.8B of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting & assignment) Act (hereinafter referred to as Act 26/71) was allowed. The order dt. 22.12.1978 passed in O.A. 170/77 was set aside. As a result, the O.A. was dismissed. The original applicant, who was respondent No.1 in I.A. 247/87 eventhough was impleaded as 3rd respondent in this appeal, his name was deleted by the appellants by obtaining an order in C.M.P. No. 3813/97.

2. Original application was filed by one T.K. Kunhunni Nair u/S.8 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting & assignment) Act seeking a declaration to the effect that the petition schedule property comprised 11 acres and 65 cents was not private forest as per the provisions of Act 26/71. In the alternative, it was contended that the applicant was entitled to exemption u/s.3(2) of Act 26/71 on the ground that the-applicant was owner of the petition schedule property and was in personal cultivation of the same and that he was not having land in excess of the ceiling limit applicable to him under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. Forest Tribunal, by its order dt. 22.12.1978, held that the applicant was entitled to exemption granted u/S.3(2) of Act 26/71. The above order was sought to be reviewed by the Custodian of Vested Forests and Conservator of Forests and State of Kerala, by filing LA. 247/87 under S.8B of Act 26/71.

3. On a consideration of the above application, Tribunal took the view that the disputed property was part of private forest governed by M.P.P.F. Act on the appointed day, that the applicant had no title to the property as he had not proved lease set up by him, that he had not proved the title of the lessor in the disputed property and that even if the lease is proved, it was invalid in view of the provisions contained u/S.3 of the M.P.P.F. Act for want of permission from the District Collector. Tribunal also found that the applicant had failed to prove the other two requirements necessary for exemption u/s.3(2), namely that he had been cultivating the property on the appointed day and that he was not having land in excess of the ceiling area provided under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The appellants who got impleaded as supplementary respondents in I.A. 247/87 contended that they had acquired the property under two sale deeds dt. 10.2.1981 from one Neelakandan Namboodiri who, in turn, had acquired the property from Kunhunni Nair, the original applicant, under assignment deed dt. 6.7.1979.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants, who had acquired the property about 10 years after Act 26/ 71 came into force, contended that appellants are bonafide purchasers from the ostensible owner and therefore, they are entitled to protection under S.41 of the Transfer of Property Act. According to learned counsel, application for review was filed only after about 9 years and in the mean while, the property was transferred by Kunhunni Nair, the ostensible owner, in favour of Neelakandan Namboodiri and thereafter to the appellants. It would clearly show that there was an implied consent on the part of the State for transferring the property in favour of the appellants by the ostensible owner. Under these circumstances, according to learned counsel, by no order of the Forest Tribunal, transfer of the property in favour of the appellants can be set at naught. It was further contended by learned counsel that the documents which are sought to be produced by the appellant before this Court would clearly prove the lease in favour of Subrahmania Iyer from Poomully Mana and a sublease in favour of Kunhunni Nair from Subrahmania Iyer. According to the appellants, the provisions contained under S.3 of the M.P.P.F. Act c