SUBRAMONIAN POTI, J. :- The subject-matter of the suit from which this appeal arises is the dispute between the plaintiff and the first defendant as to the boundary between their properties. Plaintiff is the owner of Cheria Cheerothum-kalam Mala while the first defendant is the owner of Puthenpeedikamala and the dispute is as to the boundary between these two properties. The plaintiff sued for specification and demarcation of the property comprised in the plaint schedule in accordance with the terms of an agreement reached between the plaintiff and the first defendant earlier and he also prayed for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their men from trespassing upon the plaint property and interfering with the plaintiff's possession. There is a further relief prayed for in the suit and that concerns the claim of damages in respect of trees, it any, cut by the defendants from the Plaint property. The plaintiff lost the suit in the court below, that court finding that the suit was not maintainable and that' even otherwise the plaintiff was not entitled to succeed. This appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff claims to have obtained title to the plaint schedule property which is described in the Plaint as Cheria Cheerothumkalam Malayaram, 1000 acres in extent, lying north of Kodappadimala. Kodappadi thodu and Puthenpeedikamala. According to him he obtained this malavaram under Ex. A2 sale deed executed by one Manikalal Sivaraj and Dr. C.C. John after taking permission for such transfer under the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1049. Such sanction was necessary since the property dealt with was private forest and without permission from the Collector any transfer would not be valid. The executants of Ext. A2 sale deed are said to have obtained title to the property from one Mahammad under Ext. A1 dated 20-9-1943, and this right so obtained by them under Ext. A1 was conveyed under Ext. A2.

3. After taking Ext. A2 sale deed plaintiff applied for a permit under Section 3(2) of the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act. 1949 from the Collector at the District concerned to enable him to fell timber and clear the area of about 500 acres out of the said property. It is said that the plaintiff obtained permission from the Collector and for the purpose of clear felling pursuant to the permit, preliminary work by way of construction of approach road was commenced. The first defendant is said to be a part owner of Puthenpeedika Mala, which in the body of the plaint, plaintiff describes as lying south-west of the plaint property though in the schedule to the plaint it is described as in the southern boundary. First defendant applied for licence for felling trees from a large extent of Puthenpeedikamala, but he got permission for clear felling only from 100 acres lying on the south-western portion of his property. It is said that the first defendant taking advantage of the fact that he so obtained a permit for 100 acress in Puthenpeedikamala, attempted to disturb the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of a portion of the property in the north which was part of his Cheria Cheerothum Mala. It is said that prior to the grant of permission to the Plaintiff for clear felling from the Cheria Cheerothum Mala first defendant had objected to such Brant and it was overruling such objection on the finding that plaintiff was actually in enjoyment and possession of the property that the permit had been granted to the plaintiff. It is said that having failed in his attempt to obstruct the grant of the permit, first defendant moved the Executive First Class Magistrate, Quilandy, but that did not bear any fruit. Plaintiff claims to be in undisputed possession of the entire property within the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule except a small portion regarding which there was said to be recent encroachment In respect of that plaintiff averred that separate proceedings were proposed