JUDGMENT GOVINDARAJULU, J 1. Plaintiff Nos. 3, 6, 17, 24, 27, 33, 38, 39, 41, 42 and 56 in the suit OS No.221/97 are the appellants in this second appeal. 2. Parties will be referred according to their status found in the suit for convenience. 3. Suit is filed by 61 plaintiffs seeking for declaration of title to the plaint schedule property for permanent injunction. In the schedule to the plaint, property is described as land in Sy.Nos.95, 135, 136 measuring 138 acres of Narasapur Hobli situated at Achenahalli Village. 4. Case of the plaintiffs is that they are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property since 1936, though 1st defendant through the then Maharaja issued a forest settlement Notification in GO.No.105-FT-304-35-8 dated 6.7.1936. Under the said Notification, while declaring these suit schedule Sy.Nos.as forest land, had directed the defendants to evict the plaintiffs from the plaint schedule property. It is further pleaded the said Notification could not be implemented as plaintiffs were in possession and enjoying the properties. So, plaintiffs were allowed to cultivate the properties. Plaintiffs in pursuance of the cultivation of the properties have put up borewells, erected pumps, since 20-25 years they are raising vegetables, Mulberry etc. they are in possession of the property. Strangely to the knowledge of the plaintiffs, in the year 1994 3rd defendant attempted to interfere with the possession. Defendants are very well aware that the plaintiffs are in possession of the properties from the year 1936. Defendants have taken assistance of police two days prior to filing of the suit. So, there is urgency. So, seek for dispensing the notice under Section 80. 5. This case of the plaintiffs is resisted by the defendants contending that the total land that is reserved for the forest is 186 acres 29 guntas out of 142 acres. So, the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest over the property. Property described covers properties situated at Kolar Taluk and Malur Taluk and this property is described as “Lakshminagara Plantation”. Since the date of reservation of the property, the defendants are in possession of the property and it is a forest department property. In the said property Eucalyptus and Kadu Bush is also found and survey polls are erected. So, place reliance on the Notification issued by the then Maharaja of Mysore and the Gazette Notification supporting their claim including the RTCs. 6. In the said property Eucalyptus and Kadu Bush is also found and survey polls are erected. So, place reliance on the Notification issued by the then Maharaja of Mysore and the Gazette Notification supporting their claim including the RTCs. 6. Learned Trial Judge has framed issues. Parties were permitted to lead evidence. PWs 1 to 7 are examined. Ex.P.1 to P.17 are marked. In response DW.1 is examined. Ex.D.1 to D.8 are marked. 7. Learned Trial Judge has granted permanent injunction as prayed for but rejected the declaration of title as prayed for by the plaintiffs while answering the following issues with the following reasonings: ISSUES 1. Do the plaintiffs prove that, they are in adverse possession of the suit property to the knowledge of the entire world against the interest of the true owner including the defendant No.1 to 5 since from 1936 more than the statutory period and as such have perfected their title over the suit properties? 2. Do the plaintiffs further prove that, since three days prior to the filing of the instant suit and also on the subsequent dates, the defendants were illegally tried to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit properties by way of denying their title? 3. Do the defendants prove that the instant suit is had for non issual of the notice as required under Section 80 CPC? 4. Do the defendants prove that the suit survey numbers are reserved for the purpose of forming a Forest and the suit properties are the properties belonging to the Forest Department? 5. Do the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for the relief of declaration? 6. Do the plaintiffs further prove that they are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction? 7. What decree or order? ANSWERS Issue No.1 and 2 : Partly affirmative Issue No.3 and 5 : In the Negative Issue No.4 and 6 : In the Affirmative Issue No.7 : As per final order. 8. Defendants have preferred appeal in RA 231/02 on the file of the Second addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Kolar. Learned Appellate Judge has raised the following points for consideration and has answered them while dismissing the suit and allowing the appeal.KANNADA 9. Learned Advocate for the plaintiffs submit that the plaintiffs have filed cross-appeal in the RA. The said cross-appeal is not considered. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Kolar. Learned Appellate Judge has raised the following points for consideration and has answered them while dismissing the suit and allowing the appeal.KANNADA 9. Learned Advocate for the plaintiffs submit that the plaintiffs have filed cross-appeal in the RA. The said cross-appeal is not considered. Secondly, submit that there is a delay in filing the appeal by the defendants. Application is filed to condone delay. Without considering the said application, final orders are passed. So, the Court do not get jurisdiction to record the Judgment. 10. Learned Government Pleader Sri Nasrulla Khan submits that the land is a forest land and procedure adopted is not in accordance with law. 11. In the light of the above the points that arise for consideration by this Court are as under: (1) Whether the plaintiff’s suit as the one framed in regard to forest land is maintainable? (2) Whether Learned Appellate Judge was not justified in considering the case on merits without considering the application for condonation of delay and the cross-appeal? 12. Learned Advocate for the plaintiff has placed reliance on the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court in MAHABIR SINGH vs. SUBASH AND OTHERS1. The material submission in regard to the filing of the cross-appeal, filing of the application for condonation of delay and the delay in filing the appeal are not at all disputed. So, there is a duty cast on the Appellate Court first to decide the said applications and then take the case for hearing on merits. Having not done so, the approach of the Appellate Judge in RA231/02 is incorrect. On this ground the submission of the Learned Advocate for the plaintiffs is accepted. Point No.2 is answered in favour of plaintiffs. 13. In the facts of the case, the property is described as a land giving the revenue Sy.Nos.95, 135, 136. Section 132(1)(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 reads as follows: Sec: 132: Certified copies of records to be answered to plaint or application: (1) The plaintiff or applicant in every suit or application, as hereinafter defined relating to land situated in any area to which this Chapter applies, shall annex to the plaint or application, a certified copy of any entry in the Record of Rights or Register of Mutations relevant to such land. (Emphasis supplied) (2) ………… (3) After the disposal of any case in which a certified copy of any such entry has been recorded, the Court shall communicate to the Deputy Commissioner any error appearing in such entry and any alteration therein that may be required by reason of the decree or order and a copy of such communication shall be kept with the record. The Deputy Commissioner shall in such case cause the entry to be corrected in accordance with the decree or decision of the Court, so far as it adjudication upon any right required to be entered in the Record of Rights of Register of Mutations. The provisions of this sub-Section shall apply also to an Appellate or Revisional Court: Provided that, in the case of an appellate or revisional decree or order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court, the communication shall be made by the original Court from which the appeal lay or the record was called for”. Claim an order in regard to any landed property, the RTCs or Revenue Document to support the claim of the plaintiffs have to be produced. In the facts of the case, Ex.P.2 to P.16 are produced along with plaint, they are RTCs. These RTCs disclose that the property is a Gomal Land. Land Revenue Act prohibits dealing with Gomal Land. So, even on the documents produced by the plaintiffs, there is Non-compliance of the mandatory rules found in The Karnataka Land Revenue Act. So, there is a duty cast upon the suit as the one framed is maintainable that too in view of the Notification of1936-37 issued by Maharaja of Mysore being not questioned. It is not even the case of the plaintiffs that the said Maharaja who has issued the notification had no authority to issue the Notification or that he lacked power. It is apt in the situation reflected in the facts of the case to explain the meaning of “Forest land”. Mitra in his book ‘Legal & Commercial Dictionary states and gives the meaning of “Forest Land”. It is apt in the situation reflected in the facts of the case to explain the meaning of “Forest land”. Mitra in his book ‘Legal & Commercial Dictionary states and gives the meaning of “Forest Land”. Forest land: “Forest land”, without evidence to show that it had been cleared and prepared or earmarked for agricultural purposes, must be treated as prima facie non-agricultural land” (Emphasis supplied) In view of this meaning to the Forest Land and in view of the RTCs disclosing that it is a Gomal Land, the prima-facie material would show that the approach of the Learned Trial Judge and Appellate Judge that it is a land in revenue Sy.No. capable of being held by public is not apt. As it is a Gomal Land, if the plaintiffs claim right in regard to a Gomal Land, they have to follow the procedure prescribed under the Land Revenue Act. Under Land Revenue act, except for the Deputy Commissioner, there is no other authority who can reduce or increase the extent of Gomal Land. Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 17 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 deal with reserve forest. Under Section 3, the State Government can declare its property as a reserved forest. Under Section 4 the State Government has to issue Notification in regard to the identification of the said forest land. Under Section 5, the Forest Settlement Officer to notify the particulars of the forest land. Section 4 is issued by the Government. Under Section 6(3), there is a bar on the Civil Court to entertain a suit to establish any right in or over any land in respect of which Notification under Section 4 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 is issued. Section 7 authorise the enquiry by the Forest Settlement Officer after the declaration of a land as a forest land under Section 4 of the Act. Section 17 deals with Notification declaring the forest as a reserved forest. Who has authority to forest land. Gomal Land are not all considered. These aspects of the case are not considered by both the Courts. In view of Point No.2 being answered in favour of the plaintiffs, Courts holds that the subject urged in this case require re-consideration by the Learned Appellate Judge. Who has authority to forest land. Gomal Land are not all considered. These aspects of the case are not considered by both the Courts. In view of Point No.2 being answered in favour of the plaintiffs, Courts holds that the subject urged in this case require re-consideration by the Learned Appellate Judge. So, the following points are raised by this Court to be answered by the Appellate Judge: (1) Whether the plaintiff can claim title to the plaint schedule property in view of it being a Gomal Land as per RTCs? (2) Whether the suit is barred under Sec 6(3) of the Karnataka Forest Act 1963? (3) Whether the Notification issued by his Highness Maharaja in 1937, can be questioned by the plaintiffs in 1997, in the suit? 14. Further, Learned Appellate Judge is directed to secure the presence of both the parties, her both sides, decide the case afresh in accordance with law. It is made clear the discussion made above is limited for consideration of the submissions addressed. Appellate Judge to record additional evidence if necessary, or call for findings, then decide the case afresh in accordance with law.