MEERAN ROWTHER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs appeal against the dismissal of his suit by Mr. Justice Govinda Pillai on 26.7.1948 in the erstwhile Travancore High Court wherein it was numbered as O.S. 3 of 1122 having been withdrawn from the District Court of Quilon where it was filed and numbered as O.S. No. 71 of 1121.

(2.) The suit relates to properties of a very large extent of about 2500 acres, roughly four square miles and of considerable value estimated at seven lakhs of rupees by the appellant and over five lakhs by the respondent State. The suit was for declaration of the plaintiffs title to the aforesaid property which is in Achankovil Pakuthy, Shenkotta Taluk, Quilon District. His case was that the property was registered in the name of his predecessor-in-title even in the ayacut before the year 1000 and that from those very early times possession was continuously with the first owners and their successors. There were proceedings taken under the Travancore Forest Act, II of 1068, and the property is now part of the Achankovil Reserve as is shown by Ext. AH, the sketch. A volume of documentary evidence was adduced before the learned Judge but there was nothing to prove that the plaintiffs predecessor had any title to the property. The documents at best serve to show that for a large number of years plaintiffs predecessors-in-title were cultivating portions of the property before the aforestation. A criminal prosecution launched against the plaintiff in 1100 on the ground that he trespassed into a part of the said forest was thrown out and he was acquitted on the ground that he was bona fide in occupation of the concerned property. Attempts made by the plaintiff to get the property registered in his name did not succeed and he had resort to court. Learned counsel for the appellant took us through the various pieces of evidence in the case but has not been able to point out any document indicating that the plaintiff or his predecessors-in-title had a right which could and should be recognised by the State. At best the evidence may indicate that the plaintiffs predecessors-in-title were licensees of a part of the property. When aforestation proceedings were taken if no individual notice was issued to the plaintiffs predecessor that was no defect in the proceedings because he had no antecedent title or recognisable right to possession. A squatter is not entitled to notice under S. 6 of the Forest Act.

(3.) The learned Judge in an elaborate judgment deals with the entire evidence in the case and we are in complete agreement with him in respect of the several findings he has recorded except that his opinion that the plaintiffs father must have had notice of the proceedings in afforestation does not appeal to us. Notice under the Act must be written individual notice to the concerned parties. If a party who is entitled to such a notice is aware of the proceedings such awareness will not lead to the consequence of his having served with notice. Reference may be made to 39 Madras 494. But this, however, does not in the least affect, the result because we have found in agreement with the learned Judge that the plaintiff or any of his so-called predecessors-in-title had no right to be notified under the Act.