Point of Law: Question of suit being premature does not go to the root of jurisdiction of the Court; the Court entertaining such a suit and passing decree therein is not acting without jurisdiction but it is in the judicial discretion of the Court to grant decree or not.

JUDGMENT :

C.S. Sudha, J.

This is an appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 30/06/2012 in O.S.No.76/2008 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Palakkad. The suit for compensation/damages has been decreed. Defendants 1 to 7 are the appellants and the plaintiffs and the eighth defendant, the respondents herein. The parties in this appeal will be referred to as described in the suit.

2. The plaintiffs through their power of attorney, allege in the plaint that property having a total extent of 46.35 acres situated in re-survey no.551, Vandazhi Village, Alathur Taluk, Palakkad district, was purchased by them during the period 1999-2000 by various registered documents. The property purchased by the plaintiffs was the subject matter in O.A.No.331, 333, 334 and 336 of 1976 on the file of the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad. These OAs filed under Section 8 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (the Vesting and Assignment Act), were originally allowed by the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad, holding that the property was liable to be excluded from the provisions of the Vesting and Assignment Act. This order was set aside by this Court in M.F.A.Nos.127,128, 142 and 443 of 1980 and the matter remanded to the Forest Tribunal for a fresh consideration. After remand, the Forest Tribunal as per order dated 31/07/1988 again allowed the OAs exempting the property from the purview of the Vesting and Assignment Act. Against this order of the Forest Tribunal, the defendants therein took up the matter in appeal by filing M.F.A.No.374/1987. This Court by judgment dated 31/01/1997 confirmed the order of the Forest Tribunal and dismissed the appeal. Against the decision, Special Leave Petition No.10913/1997 was filed before the Apex Court. By order dated 01/12/1997 the SLP was dismissed. However, defendants 1 to 5 did not immediately restore possession of the property to the applicants. On the other hand, possession was handed over only on 14/01/1999 as per the order of this Court in O.P.No.6566/1998.

2.1. The plaintiffs, who are agriculturists, purchased the property from the applicants in the aforesaid OAs for the purpose of developing the same as a rubber plantation. After the purchase, the plaintiffs applied to the Rubber Board, Regional Office, Palakkad, for getting necessary registration, which was granted. For the development of the property as a rubber plantation, funds were required and so the plaintiffs approached the eighth defendant bank, for a loan. Accordingly, the eighth defendant sanctioned the loan sought for, pursuant to which the first three installments were disbursed to the plaintiffs totaling an amount of Rs.19,88,540/-. After obtaining the first three installments of the loan, the plaintiffs developed the property by planting rubber saplings. When the plaintiffs obtained possession of the property, there were no trees in the property and it had no characteristics whatsoever of an ecologically fragile land (EFL). The property was restored to the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs after a protracted legal battle, but defendants 1 to 5 were in no mood to see that the property was available for the enjoyment by the plaintiffs. In the second week of August 2000, defendants 4 and 5 threatened the plaintiffs that they would destroy the saplings planted in the property. The fourth defendant approached the power of attorney of the plaintiffs and demanded a huge sum of money for not including the property within the purview of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Ordinance, 2000 (the Ordinance). This demand was not acceded to by the power of attorney holder of the plaintiffs. Hence defendants 4 and 5 accompanied by their subordinate officers, uprooted and destroyed the saplings in the property. So, the plaintiffs were forced to file O.P.No.24844/2000 for restraining defendants 4 and 5 and their officials from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property