Judgment :- The appellants in all the three appeals are the same. The respondents, no doubt, are different, but the facts in all the three cases are almost identical. There was a joint trial in all the three suits. A common judgment was rendered. Appeals were filed by the present appellants. They were dismissed by a common judgment and the present second appeals have been filed. 2. The suits O.S.Nos.302, 503 and 504 of 1981 were filed before the District Munsif's Court, Uthamapalayam, by the respective plaintiffs, who are the respondents in the second appeals for declaration and permanent injunction on the following averments: One Mottayyan Samban was granted Zamin patta on 21-6-1925 by the Bodinayakanur Zamin for an extent of 1.80 kuzhis in Pymash No.27 of Agamalai Village. Mottayyan Samban was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property till 29-1-1952. Under an unregistered sale deed dated 29-1-1952, he sold the suit property in O.S.No.503/81 to the plaintiff Mariyappa Nadar. Ever since the plaintiff had been in possession and enjoyment of the same paying kist to the Government from 1955 onwards. After the taking over of the estate by the Government as per the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act, Act 26 of 1948, the Estate Manager measured the land in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and issued a temporary patta for an extent of 5 acres 10 cents under Section 3(d) of the Act. The patta covered the entire suit property. Similarly, one Veerabadran Asari was granted Zamin patta by the then Zamindari for an extent of 1 kuzhi in the same pymash of Agamalai Village. On 10-8-1953 Veerabadran Asari sold the suit property to the plaintiff in O.S.No.502/81, viz. Madhavalakshmi Ammal under an unregistered sale deed. Madhavalakshmi Ammal was paying kist from 1955 onwards. The actual extent in her possession was 8 acres 40 cents. She was granted patta under Section 3(d) of the Act in respect of the said land. So far as the plaintiff in O.S.No.504/81 is concerned, the Zamindar issued patta to one Kulla Maya Thevar for an extent of 1 kuzi in Pymash No.27. Kulla Maya Thevar was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and on 27-1-1951 he sold the same to the plaintiff in O.S.No.504/81, viz. Thenammal. She was paying kist from 1955 onwards. So far as the plaintiff in O.S.No.504/81 is concerned, the Zamindar issued patta to one Kulla Maya Thevar for an extent of 1 kuzi in Pymash No.27. Kulla Maya Thevar was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and on 27-1-1951 he sold the same to the plaintiff in O.S.No.504/81, viz. Thenammal. She was paying kist from 1955 onwards. The Estate Manager measured the property, which was in her possession and enjoyment; found her in possession and enjoyment of 5 acres 10 cents; issued 3(d) patta to her. During the settlement operations the plaintiffs in the respective suits omitted to apply to Settlement Officer for issuance of patta. However, as per orders inG.O.No.1300 Revenue dated 30-4-1971, the plaintiffs applied independently for ryotwari patta. The Additional Collector of Madurai, who enquired into the matter, found that the plaintiffs and their predecessors in interest have been in possession of the respective extents from 1925 onwards and that the suit lands were ryoti lands. However, he refused to issue patta under the conception that the lands had been declared to be forest lands under the Tamil Nadu Forests Act. The plaintiffs filed independent appeals to the Commissioner. The Commissioner confirmed the orders of the Additional Collector on 25-6-1979 on the ground that the plaintiffs did not produce 3(d) patta at the time of his enquiry. The Commissioner also held that the occupations by the plaintiffs were encroachments. The further appeals by the plaintiffs were dismissed on 28-1-1980. All the Officers did not consider the tenure law governing the parties that once the occupancy right was created,it was a ryoti land and it could not be taken away under any provision of law by the Government. Further, the occupancy right was a transferable and heritable one. The respective plaintiffs have been in possession of the properties even before and after the notification and paying kist to the Government. They have also prescribed for title by adverse possession. The Forest Department under the erroneous orders of the Settlement Department was threatening to disturb the possession of the plaintiffs. Section 80 notice was issued to the first appellant, who sent replies rejecting the claims of the plaintiffs. The second appellant was added as second defendant in the suits as required by the first appellant/first defendant. In these circumstances, the suits came to be filed. 3. Section 80 notice was issued to the first appellant, who sent replies rejecting the claims of the plaintiffs. The second appellant was added as second defendant in the suits as required by the first appellant/first defendant. In these circumstances, the suits came to be filed. 3. The first defendant filed a written statement contending inter alia as follows: A notification was issued for taking over the Bodinayakanur Zamin on 9-12-1950 under the Estates Abolition Act, 1948. The estate came into uninterrupted possession of the Government only on 5-3-1954 after the stay granted by the Courts was vacated. Ryotwari settlement was effected in Fasli year 1972. The Settlement Officer, Madurai, in his order D.Dis.88/PKM/62 dated 4-5-1962 ratified the assignment made by the original landholder in favour of the respective plaintiffs under Section 11 of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948. The plaintiffs jointly claimed patta outside the scope of Abolition Act, 1948 under G.O.Ms.No.1300 in respect of various extents. The claim included larger extents than originally granted by the Zamindar. The AdditionalCollector issued patta for the excess land claimed by the various plaintiffs. However, during settlement proceedings there was no claim for these lands. The plaintiffs did not apply for patta outside the scope of the Act when they applied to the Collector earlier during 1974. They were all aware of the proceedings. However, they applied to the Collector of Madurai in 1977 for their assignment of the suit lands in all the three cases outside the scope of the Estates Abolition Act as per the provisions of G.O.Ms.1300, Revenue, dated 30-4-1971. The claims were rejected by the Additional Collector of Madurai on 5-3-1978 since the requirements of continuous possession and enjoyment prior to and from the notified date was not established. The appeals were dismissed; the claims were rejected by the Board of Revenue; the revisions were also rejected. The very fact that the plaintiffs have sought for patta outside the scope of the Abolition Act, 1948 under G.O.Ms.1300, Revenue, dated 30.4.1971 would clearly show that they had admitted the title of the Government since the claims under the said G.O could only be in respect of lands vested in Government by virtue of Section 3(b) of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948. Though all the three plaintiffs applied for patta jointly, they filed independent suits. They were estopped from claiming any title to suit lands that had vested in the State. Though all the three plaintiffs applied for patta jointly, they filed independent suits. They were estopped from claiming any title to suit lands that had vested in the State. There could be no right subsequent to the notified date of 9.12.1950 against the State as per the provisions of Sections 3(c) and 3(g) in respect of the lands, which had vested in the State. Pattas under Section 3(d) were issued subject to statutory adjudication at the time of settlement by the authorities concerned. The vendors of the plaintiffs had no right and therefore their conveyance could not confer any right. The suit lands were not ryoti lands within the meaning of Section 3(1) of the Estates Land Act, 1908. They had not established that the lands were agricultural lands or that there was an assignment by the landholder as ryots or that they had held the land subject to payment of rent to the landholder. Mere possession, which was denied would not constitute holding under Section 3(15) of the Estates Land Act, 1908. The plaintiffs had no records to satisfy the requirements of Section 11 of the Estates Abolition Act. The kist receipts relied on were subsequent to the notified date. The plaintiffs were aware of the settlement proceedings. Failure to apply patta could not therefore be treated as due to ignorance or reasons beyond their control. The suit lands are situate in forest. The Assistant Settlement Officer took up suo motu action under Section 63 of the Act and in his order No.63/2-UPM/71 dated 26-3-1973 declared S.No.1374 part as forest. During his enquiry he published a general notice in the village and in response thereof, 27 persons appeared before him for enquiry. The plaintiffs did not avail this opportunity. This order was set aside by the Director of Survey and Settlements inR.P.Nos.1 to 28/74 dated 21-8-1979. There was a remand. In the remanded enquiry, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, declared S.No.1384/1 measuring 26974.45 acres as forest under Section 63 of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948 in his order SR.63/1-UPM/76 dated 12-6-1976. Notices were issued to all persons who claimed portions. If really the plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, notices would have been issued to them also. This would show that the occupation, if any, by the plaintiffs was by way of post settlement encroachment of forest land. Notices were issued to all persons who claimed portions. If really the plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, notices would have been issued to them also. This would show that the occupation, if any, by the plaintiffs was by way of post settlement encroachment of forest land. They had also not objected to the declaration of the entire area as forest by filing revision petitions to the revisional authorities to sustain a claim under Section 11(a) of the Act. By applying to the revenue authorities for assignment outside the scope of the Act, they had acknowledged the same under Section 3(b) of the Estates Abolition Act. Survey No.1384 had been notified under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 and the proclamation under Section 6 of the Act had also been published on 20-4-1978. A Forest Settlement Officer was appointed under the Forest Act, 1882 and the plaintiffs did not put forth their claims before him also. Notices under Section 6 of the Forest Act have been issued to the plaintiffs and instead of appearing before him, they had chosen to file the suits. Pymash No.26 claimed by the plaintiffs is poramboke falling under Section 3(16)(b) of the Estates Land Act and therefore, the alleged alienation by the landholder in favour of the vendors of the plaintiffs is against the provisions of Section 29(a) of the Estates Land Act, 1908. The plaintiffs cannot acquire any prescriptive right. Application for assignment outside the scope of the Abolition Act and failure to take action under Land Encroachment Act, would rule out any claim of adverse possession after vesting of the land in the Government. The plaintiffs are encroachers. They have not legally acquired either occupancy right or kudiwaram right. The suits have not been properly valued. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suits. 4. The second appellant/second defendant filed a written statement practically on the sale lines as the written statement of the first appellant. It raised an additional point that once the District Forest Officer is to be added as a party,Section 18 notice should be issued to the District Forest Officer and without notice under Section 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the District Forest Officer, the suits are not maintainable and they have to be dismissed. 5. It raised an additional point that once the District Forest Officer is to be added as a party,Section 18 notice should be issued to the District Forest Officer and without notice under Section 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the District Forest Officer, the suits are not maintainable and they have to be dismissed. 5. The plaintiffs filed reply statements reiterating the averments in the plaint and stating further as follows: The suit lands are ryoti lands. The plaintiffs and their predecessors in interest have been in possession even prior to 1915 under valid patta issued by the landholder and this would be evident from the adangal, patta and kist receipts. The plaintiffs and their predecessors in interest have been paying kist both before and after notification. The Revenue Authorities and Settlement Authorities admitted that the plaintiffs were in possession, the relevant documents having been filed before them. The suit properties are not new encroachments. The mere fact that the plaintiffs did not apply to the Settlement Authorities for issue of patta is no bar to the institution of the present suits. G.O.Ms.No.1300 Revenue has been entirely misconceived by the defendants. There is no difference between the enquiries by the Additional Collector in enquiring into the claims of the plaintiffs and it is only on a par with the Settlement Authorities under the said G.O., the forum alone being changed. The suit properties are not poramboke as could be seen from the pattas and adangal extracts produced by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have planted valuable trees. They have been replanted and they are yielding fruits. There was also cultivation in the space between the trees. The mere fact that Section 3(d) patta had been issued is a proof that the plaintiffs and their predecessors in interest have been in possession and enjoyment and that they have not been evicted is another proof that they are ryoti lands. The situation of the lands itself would show that they are ryoti lands. They are not forest lands. Under no circumstances, ryoti lands in possession of ryotis can become forest lands. The provisions of the Madras Forest Act have not been complied with. Notices have not been issued by the Forest Department. The rejection by the Board of Revenue will not deprive of the plaintiffs in claiming the suit properties. They are not forest lands. Under no circumstances, ryoti lands in possession of ryotis can become forest lands. The provisions of the Madras Forest Act have not been complied with. Notices have not been issued by the Forest Department. The rejection by the Board of Revenue will not deprive of the plaintiffs in claiming the suit properties. The suits have been properly valued and the Civil Court has jurisdiction. 6. On the above pleadings, the trial Court framed various issues and additional issues and on the oral and the documentary evidence, held as follows: The suits have been properly valued. They are not premature. The plaintiffs themselves have admitted the title of the Government and it cannot be said that they had the necessary animus to have adverse possession over the suit properties. All the plaintiffs applied for patta outside the scope of the Tamil Nadu Estates Abolition Act under G.O.Ms.No.1300, Revenue, dated 30-4-1971. The suit properties which were comprised in Pymash No.27 previously, are now included in S.No.1384 and it is a huge forest block. There is no question of estoppel if it is found that the plaintiffs and their predecessors in title have got pre-existing occupancy right and they are found to be entitled to a declaration of the same. The plaintiffs in all the three suits were in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties at the time of enquiry by the Additional Settlement Officer after remand. The suit properties are cultivable lands and they are being cultivated by rearing trees. The Civil Court is having jurisdiction to try the suits. The plaintiffs in the three suits have got patta for their respective suit lands. In as much as the plaintiffs have filed the suits for declaration of their pre-existing occupancy rights and for a consequential injunction order against the defendants, no question of limitation arises in these cases. Therefore, they are entitled to declaration of their pre-existing occupancy rights over the suit lands. So holding the trial Court by judgment dated 26-4-1985 decreed all the suits as prayed for. In the appeals filed by the appellants before the Sub Court, Periyakulam, in A.S.Nos.13 to 15 of 1986, the decision of the trial Court was confirmed by judgment dated 22-12-1987. It is as against this, the present second appeals have been filed. 7. So holding the trial Court by judgment dated 26-4-1985 decreed all the suits as prayed for. In the appeals filed by the appellants before the Sub Court, Periyakulam, in A.S.Nos.13 to 15 of 1986, the decision of the trial Court was confirmed by judgment dated 22-12-1987. It is as against this, the present second appeals have been filed. 7. At the time of admission, the following common substantial questions of law were raised for decision in the second appeals: "1. Whether the suits are maintainable before the Civil Court when no such provision was provided under G.O.Ms.No.1300 under which the plaintiff sought for declaration? 2. Whether the suits are premature when the plaintiffs have not exhausted the remedies before the Settlement Authorities? 3. Whether the unregistered sale deeds are accepted as proof with respect to limited purpose?" 8. Mr. Sivashanmugham, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants, submitted as follows: The plaintiffs in the different suits by invoking G.O.Ms.No.1300, Revenue, dated 30-4-1971 had admitted that the Government alone had title. It is not as if the plaintiffs were not aware of the proceedings under the Estates Abolition Act. In fact, one of the plaintiffs gave evidence. Further, on 19-3-1976 S.No.1384 in which the suit properties were comprised, was declared as forest lands under the Forest Act, 1982. Proclamation under Section 6 was made on 10-4-1978. The plaintiffs did not object. The lands having been declared as forest lands, the suits were not maintainable. Even otherwise, there was no material to show that the plaintiffs or their predecessors in interest under whom they claim, had possession prior to 1950. The learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that the mere fact that 3(d) patta was issued would not mean that the suit lands were ryoti lands. The documents produced by the plaintiffs would if at all, show the possession of the plaintiffs only subsequent to 1955 and not earlier to 1955. According to the learned Government Pleader, the proceedings under the relevant Acts bar the institution of suits and the suits ought to have been dismissed by the Courts below as not maintainable. 9. Mr.S.V. Jayaraman, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that every land is deemed to be ryoti land, unless the contra is proved. According to the learned Government Pleader, the proceedings under the relevant Acts bar the institution of suits and the suits ought to have been dismissed by the Courts below as not maintainable. 9. Mr.S.V. Jayaraman, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that every land is deemed to be ryoti land, unless the contra is proved. Only because the authorities under the different Acts found that the lands were ryoti and that the plaintiffs were in possession, they issued 3(d) patta under the Madras Estates Abolition Act, 1948. It was entirely for the Government to show that the lands in question ceased to be ryoti lands. 10. The learned Senior Counsel also relied on the judgments reported in: 1. STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. RAMALINGA SWAMIGAL MADAM (98 LW 849) 2. MangathaiYammal Vs. E.M. SWAMI (98 LW 89) and 3. UDAIYAPPAN AND ANOTHER VS. KARUPPAN AND OTHERS (1982 TLNJ 49O). The learned Senior Counsel placed particular reliance on Ex.A-13 dated 5-8-1978 being the proceedings of the Additional Collector, Madurai. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that there is neither oral evidence nor documentary evidence to show that the lands were declared to be forest lands. There was no gazette publication produced. Only some copy of the order of the District Forest Officer, Theni Division, Theni, dated 30-4-1977 and marked as Ex.B-5 has been produced. That would not show that there had been valid notification under the Forest Act. 11. So far as the first substantial question of law is concerned, it is now well settled that the Civil Court has jurisdiction notwithstanding the fact that patta proceedings are under the Abolition Act. So, there can therefore be no doubt that the suit is maintainable before the Civil Court as no man can be deprived of his property except by due process and the mere fact that the plaintiffs did not apply to the Settlement Authorities for issue of patta is no bar to the institution of the suits. 12. The finality under the provisions of the Abolition Act is only in respect of matters to be determined for the purpose of that Act; the decision of the Settlement Officer whether a land is a ryoti land or not is only for the purpose of granting ryotwari patta and finally for an incidental determination for the purpose of granting patta and there can be no bar for a Civil Court to declare title. The provisions of the Abolition Act do not oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. (Vide STATE OF TAMILNADU VS. RAMALINGASWAMIGAL MADAM ( AIR 1986 SC 794 = 98 LW 849). The same is the case with Acts 26 and 30 of 1963. (See (1) T.K. RAMANUJAM KAVIRAYAR AND OTHERS VS. SRI-LA-SRI SIVAPRAKASA PANDARA SANNADHI AVARGAL ETC. (1988(2) LW 513) (2) SRINIVASAN & OTHERS VS. MADHYARJUNESWARASWAMI PETTAVAITHALAI ( 1998(2) LW 189 (FB) (3) RAMALINGAM & OTHERS VS. THE IDOL OF SRI THAYUMANASWAMY ( 1998(3) LW 559 ). 13. So far as the second substantial question of law is concerned, it cannot be said that the suits are premature. There is no question of exhausting the remedies before the Settlement Authorities. Equally, the third substantial question of law relating to the unregistered sale deeds being relied on cannot also be put against the plaintiffs. These unregistered sale deeds have been marked only for the purpose of showing that the plaintiffs in the respective suits are in possession of the lands dealt with in those sale deeds. They are not relied on for the purpose of conferring title on the plaintiffs. 14. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs' predecessors in interest were granted patta by the Bodinayakanur Zamin as far back as 1925. The fact remains that the plaintiffs in the different suits were granted 3(d) patta in recognition of their prima facie enjoyment of ryoti lands. The basic principle as has been held by this Court in MANGATHAIYAMMAL VS. E.M. SWAMI (98 LW 89) is that the Abolition Act does not purport to destroy title, but only recognized the pre-existing right. The question as to title to a land in a Zamindari or other estate covered by the Act is not to be regarded as being foreclosed merely because the estate happens to be notified under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act 1948. It may be that if any person affected by the notification and having an interest in any item of the land may or may not be in a position to obtain a ryotwari patta under one or other of the provisions of the Act. It may be that if any person affected by the notification and having an interest in any item of the land may or may not be in a position to obtain a ryotwari patta under one or other of the provisions of the Act. But the question of obtaining patta is a matter strictly between himself and the State Government and any question of anterior title to the land can hardly be regarded as having become a dead issue merely because the estate has been notified. It has already been noted that in recognition of the facts that the plaintiffs were in possession and that the lands were ryoti lands, the authorities were satisfied and they issued 3(d) patta under the Act to the plaintiffs. The grant of 3(d) patta itself is in recognition of the anterior title, which is continued under a different incidence. Thus, there can be little doubt that the grant of 3(d) patta to the plaintiffs goes a long way in showing that they had been in possession and enjoyment before and after the notified date in respect of the Abolition Act, 1948. 15. We have now to address ourselves to the question relating to the notifications stated to have been issued under the Forest Act. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel Mr.S.V. Jayaraman, there is absolutely nothing to show that there was any notification or gazette publication under the Forest Act. The defendants have not examined any witness. This aspect is dealt with under point No.6 by the lower Appellate Court. It is not pleaded by the defendants that at the time the Abolition Act came into force or at the time settlement proceedings were on, the suit properties were either situate in a forest or that they were forest lands. The plaintiffs have satisfactorily established that prior to abolition of the estate, the lands were being cultivated. To show that the lands were otherwise, the defendants have not produced any oral or documentary evidence. Merely because the lands have been notified as forest lands by the Government, they will not become forest lands, particularly when at the time of Zamin abolition, the lands were ryoti lands. To show that the lands were otherwise, the defendants have not produced any oral or documentary evidence. Merely because the lands have been notified as forest lands by the Government, they will not become forest lands, particularly when at the time of Zamin abolition, the lands were ryoti lands. In the absence of any material to show that they were in a forest or that they were forest lands during Zamin period or at the time of abolition of Zamin estates, it cannot be held that they were forest lands and only the provisions of the Forest Act would apply. 16. For all the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in the second appeals. All the substantial questions of law are answered against the appellants. The second appeals fail and they are dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.