(1) THE present appellant (V.M. Syed Mohammed) claims some right in respect of land belonging to the 3rd respondent (Varkey Emmanuel) situated in Kerala. In respect of that land the Custodian of Private Forests under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (for short "the Vesting Act") raised a contention that it is a private forest and therefore that land stood vested in the Government as early as 10-5-1971. Thereafter the 3rd defendant in conjunction with the present appellant filed a claim petition under Section 8 of the Vesting Act before the Forest Tribunal, Palghat (Kerala). The Forest Tribunal declared that the said land is exempted from vesting process in view of Section 3 of the Vesting Act. The said order of the Forest Tribunal was challenged by the State of Kerala and the Custodian of Vested Forests before the High Court of Kerala. As per the judgment of the Division Bench, which is impugned in this appeal, the order of the Forest Tribunal was set aside and the exclusion claimed by the 3rd respondent was held unsustainable. (2) SO far as the 3rd respondent is concerned the judgment of the High Court has become final. He was the owner of the land before the date of vesting. The present appellant claimed to have purchased the right in respect of some timber trees from the 3rd respondent in the year 1975. In other words, the present appellant has no case that at any time before 10-5-1971 he came into contact with the 3rd respondent for the timber trees. (3) IF that be so, when the land stood vested in the Government as of 10-5-1971 under Section 3 of the Vesting Act, this appellant cannot have any right to purchase timber trees standing on this land from the 3rd respondent. There can be no dispute that so far as the 3rd respondent is concerned his land stood vested in the Government on 10-5-1971. (4) IF the appellant feels that he was misled to believe by the 3rd respondent that the 3rd respondent had the right to sell the timber trees on the property and if the appellant had suffered any pecuniary loss it is open to the appellant to resort to other legal remedies as against the 3rd respondent. Without prejudice to the aforesaid right of this appellant, we dismiss this appeal