SANKARASUBBAN, J. :- This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 296 of 1979 on the file of the Sub Court, Palakkad. Appellant is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit was filed for a decree directing the defendants to pay a total amount of Rs. 21,19,847.20 as shown in the plaint with future interest and costs and for granting other reliefs.

2. The averments in the plaint are as follows : Plaintiffs, Emerald Valley Estate Limited, is a limited Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at Badaguli in Mysore State. Defendants are the State of Kerala, The Chief Conservator of Forests and the Divisional Forest Officer, Nemmara. According to the plaintiff, a total extent of 486.63 acres of land in Pothundi Village, Chittur Taluk, Palakkad District had been leased out by the erstwhile Cochin Government on various dates and by various deeds mentioned in paragraph 1 of the plaint. The interest of the lessees under all these leases came to vest in Miraflores Estate (Private) Limited as per two sale deeds Nos. 284/1112 and 707/1124 and the lessees and the assignees were in undisputed possession of the properties covered by the leases. The assets and liabilities of Miraflores Estates (Private) Limited were taken over by the plaintiff-Company under a scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the Madras High Court as per order dated 2-11-1962 in C.P.No. 36 of 1962. Thus, the plaintiff became the assignee of the leasehold properties and has been in continuous possession of the properties ever since.

3. Further contention of the plaintiff is that the original lessees had occupied more extent than what was covered by the lease deed under the bona fide belief that they were covered by the leasehold. The area so occupied was planted with cardamom and coffee and the plaintiff and their predecessor-in-interest were in undisputed possession and enjoyment of the area so occupied. Thus, the total area occupied including the area as per the lease comes to 520 acres. It is further stated that the areas covered by the 5 leases are continguous area.

4. In the year 1968, land conservancy proceedings were initiated against the plaintiff on the allegation that the plaintiff-Company was in unauthorised occupation of a portion of Government reserved forests. It was claimed that the encroachment extends to 215 acres.

5. Plaintiff filed O.P.No. 2767 of 1962 challenging the land conservancy proceedings. In the meanwhile, the Forest Authorities took up a stand that the Company was not entitled to transport the cardamom raised in the estate without obtaining permit under the provisions of the Forest Act. Since the Company was not being granted permits for the transportation of cardamom, O.P. No. 3101 of 1976 was filed for appropriate reliefs. O.P.No. 4558 of 1976 was filed by the Company to prevent forcible eviction by the officers of the State from the area alleged to be encroached upon. There was an interim injunction passed by this Court in the Original petition. The Original Petitions were finally disposed of by this Court. This Court was of the view that the question whether the Company was in unlawful occupation of any land and if so, what was the extent of unauthorised occupation are matters which require an investigation into the disputed questions of fact and so relegated the parties to a suit.

6. Plaintiff submits that the area which the officers of the State Government took forcible possession under Section 66 of the Forest Act is really included in the five leaseholds. According to the plaintiff, this will be clear if an identification is made of the area covered by the five leaseholds keeping in mind the important fact that the area leased by the Government was really contiguous area without pockets of reserve forests. Thus, the case of the plaintiff is that 215.10 acres of land forcibly taken possession by the State Government were really included in the five lease deeds. The action of the offi