IMPORTANT POINT
A plaintiff must raise objections to statutory notifications affecting property rights; failure to do so can bar civil suits regarding title claims.

JUDGMENT :

S. SOUNTHAR, J.

Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree, dated 11.01.2007, passed in A.S. No. 16 of 1999 on the file of Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No. IV, Periyakulam, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 16.11.1998, passed in O.S. No. 138 of 1997 on the file of District Munsif, Andipatti.

1. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. The suit was for declaration of title, permanent injunction and for mandatory injunction, directing the first defendant to grant patta to the plaintiff. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The findings of the trial Court were affirmed by the first appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the unsuccessful plaintiff has come by way of this Second Appeal.

2. According to the plaintiff, the suit property originally formed part of erstwhile Gandamanur Zamin, comprised in old Zamin Patta No. 152. The suit property originally belonged to one M.Subramania Iyer and he sold the suit land to one Krishnasami Gounder under an unregistered sale deed, dated 09.11.1957. The vendee under the document had taken over the possession of the suit property and enjoyed the same. Subsequently, he sold the suit property to the plaintiff under Ex.A-3, dated 25.03.1963. It was further contended by the plaintiff that in the sale deed in his favour, the survey number of the suit property was wrongly mentioned as 27/N instead of 27/Z. Subsequently, Zamin Abolition Act came into force and the plaintiff applied for issue of Ryotwari Patta under the said Act. The Commissioner of Land Administration passed an order, rejecting the claim of the plaintiff on 27.03.1992. It was further contended by the plaintiff that when his claim was pending before the settlement authorities, the Forest Department initiated proceedings to notify the area, including the suit property, as a forest area and since the notification was issued when the settlement proceeding was pending, the same was invalid. It was also contended that the Revenue Department issued B-Memos to the plaintiff and he has been paying tax to the total extent of 17 acres of the suit property. Thus, claiming that the plaintiff and his predecessors have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff sought for declaration of title and other reliefs.

3. The defendants filed a written statement and contended that 55000 acres in the suit village, namely, Megamalai was declared as reserve forest under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for brevity) and hence the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable. It was also contended by the defendants that a notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued by the Government, notifying Megamalai village as a forest area and necessary proposals have been submitted to the Government to declare the same as reserve forest. Therefore, it was contended by the defendants that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred under Section 4 of the Act.

4. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and an independent witness was examined as PW-2. On behalf of the plaintiff, 12 documents were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-12. On behalf of the defendants, one witness was examined as DW-1 and 5 documents were marked as Exs.B-1 to B-5.

5. The trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove his right over the suit property and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 16 of 1999 on the file of Additional District Court-Fast Track Court No. IV, Periyakulam. The first appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the plaintiff is before this Court.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the suit property was originally classified as a Ryoti land and the cha