SRI RAJA CHELIKANI RAMA RAU AND SRI RAJA BALLAPRAGADA VENKATASUBBA ROW Vs. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTFOREST OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are appeals by the claimants against the decrees of the District Court of Godavari in Appeal Suits Nos. 591 and 593 of 1903 confirming the decisions of the Forest Settlement Officer of Godavari in Claims Nos. 1 and 2 of 1902. These were claims by the Mallavarm and Nadavapalli Estates, respectively, to land at the mouth of the Godavari which Government, by a Notification dated the 2nd December 1901, proposed to form into a reserved forest. Both claims being intimately connected were dealt with by the lower appellate Court in one judgment, and in this Court the same arguments were put forward on behalf of both sets of claimants. It was first con-tended that, as the appellants were in possession at the date of the notification the lands should not have been notified as a reserved forest. This contention was properly dealt with and overruled by the Forest Settlement Officer in paragraph 7 of his judgment in Claim No. 1. The appellant's pleader did not attempt to argue the matter before us, but contented himself with stating this objection.

(2.) It was further contended that the right of the Crown would be barred if the claimants succeeded in proving 12 years adverse possession prior to the coming into force of the limitation section of Act IX of 1871 and if Madras Regulation II of 1802 applied to suits to enforce public rights. The contention was based upon certain remarks in Secretary of State V/s. Vira Rayan (1885) I.L.R. 9 M. 175. The remarks are at pages 185 and 186 of the report and are as follows: The clause of Act XV of 1877 which precluded the revivor of a right to sue barred was not confined to that Act but was extended to Act IX of 1871. The words are: All references to the Indian Limitation Act, 1871, shall be read as if made to thisAct, and nothing herein or in that Act contained shall be deemed to revive any right to sue barred under that Act or under any enactment thereby repealed. Had this stood alone and had we come to the conclusion that Regulation II of 1802, Section 18, applied to public rights, we should have agreed with the Judge that 12 years adverse possession would have barred the right of the Crown to sue. When these remarks were made it was apparently thought that Regulation II of 1802 was repealed, by Act IX of 1871. Regulation II of 1802 was not repealed by Act IX of 1871. This was discovered in the course of the argument before us and the contention was then dropped. We have, however, referred to the matter because it seemed desirable to point out the misconception on which the remarks in Secretary of State V/s. Vira Rayan (1885) I.L.R. 9 M. 175 were based. It is now clear that if the claimants had to establish a title by adverse possession they would have to prove such possession for 60 years before the notification.

(3.) The main portion of the land in dispute lies between Hope Island on the north and a channel called Neelarevu on the south. The District Judge finds that the claimants have been in possession since 1882 of the portions of this tract claimed by each of them.