Non-tribals cannot claim ownership of tribal lands without government consent, and possession by non-tribals is deemed illegal under relevant statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

This Second Appeal is preferred as against the decree and judgment dated 16.03.2020 passed in A.S. No.54 of 2019, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Kallakurichi, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 30.07.2019 passed in O.S. No.73 of 2010, on the file of the District Munsif, Sankarapuram.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court.

3. The unsuccessful plaintiffs before both the courts below, have filed the present Second Appeal.

4. According to the plaintiffs, the 1^st plaintiff's father Late V. Kandhaiah had purchased 32.92 acres of patta lands from various vendors including the defendants 5 and 8 mentioned as 'A' schedule property in the suit. He also obtained 'B' memo in respect of tharisu land from the Revenue Department comprised in S.Nos. 42/5, 46/6, 44/2, 46/7 to an extent of 2.73 acres and obtained 'B' memo in favour of the plaintiffs 1 to 5 for the lands in S.Nos.36 to 39, 42, 46 and 47, which is described as 'B' schedule properties in the suit. After purchase, he developed the above properties into fruit farm land in the year 1995, by planting Mangoes, Arecanuts, pepper, cloves, silver oak trees, etc. At the time of his purchase, there was no approach road for the above properties. Thereafter, he formed the approach road and gave employment to the local villagers. The said Kandhaiah died in the year 1998, leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs. After the demise of Kandhaiah, the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Thereafter, the 1^st plaintiff has leased out the fruit farms in favour of one Mathi for a total lease amount of Rs.30,000/- in the year 2006. While so, the defendants 5 to 8, colluding with the defendants 1 to 4, are claiming that they were forced to sell the suit properties for a very meagre sum when they were under the influence of alcohol. The plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. Since the defendants are giving problems to the plaintiffs by setting fire to the suit properties and letting animals to graze the commercial crops and plants, the plaintiffs have filed the above suit.

5. The claim of the plaintiffs is resisted by the defendants stating that, the plaintiffs cannot claim ownership to the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties, since they are not hill tribes or scheduled tribes. The plaintiffs belong to upper echelons of society having money and muscle power. Moreover, they are not the residents of the Kalvarayan hill areas and it is admitted fact that, the permanent resident of the hill areas, namely the scheduled tribes, are alone entitled to enjoy the lands in the forest and hill areas. The plaintiffs are in illegal possession of more than 90 acres of forest land. The outsiders are prohibited from occupying the revenue tharisu lands in the forest area. While so, the Revenue Officials could not legitimize the possession of the plaintiffs by serving 'B' memos on them. The defendants have brought the matter to the knowledge of the revenue authorities in the meeting conveyed on 22.01.2007, in which the revenue authorities have conceded to evict the plaintiffs. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. The trial court, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs, against which the plaintiffs preferred the appeal suit in A.S. No.54/2019. The first appellate court also dismissed the appeal suit. Aggrieved by this, the present Second Appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs.

7.The Second Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

i. Whether the Courts below were right in dismissing the suit for injunction after having found that the plai