The recognition of pre-existing rights and the grant of 3(d) patta as evidence of possession and enjoyment of ryoti lands were central to the court's decision.

The appellants in all the three appeals are the same. The respondents, no doubt, are different, but the facts in all the three cases are almost identical. There was a joint trial in all the three suits. A common judgment was rendered. Appeals were filed by the present appellants. They were dismissed by a common judgment and the present second appeals have been filed.

2. The suits O.S.Nos.302, 503 and 504 of 1981 were filed before the District Munsif's Court, Uthamapalayam, by the respective plaintiffs, who are the respondents in the second appeals for declaration and permanent injunction on the following averments:

One Mottayyan Samban was granted Zamin patta on 21-6-1925 by the Bodinayakanur Zamin for an extent of 1.80 kuzhis in Pymash No.27 of Agamalai Village. Mottayyan Samban was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property till 29-1-1952. Under an unregistered sale deed dated 29-1-1952, he sold the suit property in O.S.No.503/81 to the plaintiff Mariyappa Nadar. Ever since the plaintiff had been in possession and enjoyment of the same paying kist to the Government from 1955 onwards. After the taking over of the estate by the Government as per the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act, Act 26 of 1948, the Estate Manager measured the land in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and issued a temporary patta for an extent of 5 acres 10 cents under Section 3(d) of the Act. The patta covered the entire suit property. Similarly, one Veerabadran Asari was granted Zamin patta by the then Zamindari for an extent of 1 kuzhi in the same pymash of Agamalai Village. On 10-8-1953 Veerabadran Asari sold the suit property to the plaintiff in O.S.No.502/81, viz. Madhavalakshmi Ammal under an unregistered sale deed. Madhavalakshmi Ammal was paying kist from 1955 onwards. The actual extent in her possession was 8 acres 40 cents. She was granted patta under Section 3(d) of the Act in respect of the said land.

So far as the plaintiff in O.S.No.504/81 is concerned, the Zamindar issued patta to one Kulla Maya Thevar for an extent of 1 kuzi in Pymash No.27. Kulla Maya Thevar was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and on 27-1-1951 he sold the same to the plaintiff in O.S.No.504/81, viz. Thenammal. She was paying kist from 1955 onwards. The Estate Manager measured the property, which was in her possession and enjoyment; found her in possession and enjoyment of 5 acres 10 cents; issued 3(d) patta to her.

During the settlement operations the plaintiffs in the respective suits omitted to apply to Settlement Officer for issuance of patta. However, as per orders inG.O.No.1300 Revenue dated 30-4-1971, the plaintiffs applied independently for ryotwari patta. The Additional Collector of Madurai, who enquired into the matter, found that the plaintiffs and their predecessors in interest have been in possession of the respective extents from 1925 onwards and that the suit lands were ryoti lands. However, he refused to issue patta under the conception that the lands had been declared to be forest lands under the Tamil Nadu Forests Act. The plaintiffs filed independent appeals to the Commissioner. The Commissioner confirmed the orders of the Additional Collector on 25-6-1979 on the ground that the plaintiffs did not produce 3(d) patta at the time of his enquiry. The Commissioner also held that the occupations by the plaintiffs were encroachments. The further appeals by the plaintiffs were dismissed on 28-1-1980. All the Officers did not consider the tenure law governing the parties that once the occupancy right was created,it was a ryoti land and it could not be taken away under any provision of law by the Government. Further, the occupancy right was a transferable and heritable one. The respective plaintiffs have been in possession of the properties even before and after the notification and paying kist to the Government. They have also prescribed for title by adverse possession. The Forest Department under the