JUDGMENT : K. Vinod Chandran, J. Both the Original Petitions arise from a proceeding initiated before the Forest Tribunal, by one Sethumadhavan Nair; now expired. The present dispute is between the legal heirs of Sethumadhavan Nair and the legal heirs of his assignee. O.P (F.T) No. 6 of 2019 is against rejection of an application for amendment, filed by the legal heirs of Sethumadhavan Nair, for altering the extent of the property which was the subject matter of O.A.No.63 of 1975, later renumbered as O.A.No.59/2000. The learned Tribunal found that the order declaring the subject lands to be exempted under Section 3 (2) (3) of the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (for brevity, the Act of 1971) was affirmed in an appeal before this Court and the principle of merger, restrains the Tribunal from entertaining a review of its judgment in the O.A. The Tribunal, according to us, rightly found that when the order of the Tribunal has merged with the order in the MFA, there can be no review sought for before the Tribunal. Reliance was also placed on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Thomas v. Kunjamma 2005 (4) KLT 286 . O.P. (FT) No.6/2019, hence, has to be rejected, leaving open the remedy if any, before the Division Bench of the High Court, which disposed of MFA No.166/2004. 2. O.P.(FT) No.10/2019 is filed against Ext.P14 order of the Tribunal which rejected the application filed by the legal heirs of Sethumadhavan Nair to review Ext.P8 order. 3. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. Sethumadhavan for the petitioners, Sri. Dinesh Mathew Murikkan for the party respondents and Sri. Nagaraj Narayanan, learned Special Government Pleader (Forests) appearing for the State. 4. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, the proceedings before the Tribunal had a checkered history which has to be noticed at the outset. On the Act of 1971 coming into force, the department took a stand that the properties belonging to Sethumadhavan Nair was a private forest which stood statutorily vested in the State. Sethumadhavan Nair filed O.A.No.63/1975 before the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad which was allowed by order dated 11.08.1977. On 21.07.1980, by Deed No.2685/1980 of SRO Alathur, produced as Ext.R2(b), Sethumadhavan Nair assigned the property to Sara Philip. Sara Philip sold the property to one Mathunny as per Ext.R2(c), in the year 1981. Sethumadhavan Nair filed O.A.No.63/1975 before the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad which was allowed by order dated 11.08.1977. On 21.07.1980, by Deed No.2685/1980 of SRO Alathur, produced as Ext.R2(b), Sethumadhavan Nair assigned the property to Sara Philip. Sara Philip sold the property to one Mathunny as per Ext.R2(c), in the year 1981. In the year 1987, by I.A.No.236/1987, the department again approached the Tribunal seeking review of the order dated 11.08.1977. The same was allowed and by order dated 06.12.1988, the O.A. stood dismissed. Against the dismissal, the legal heirs of Sethumadhavan Nair and Mathunny jointly filed an appeal before the High Court. Noticing that the legal heirs/assignees of Sethumadhavan Nair were not impleaded in the review sought for in the above I.A., M.F.A.No.601/1989 so filed was also allowed on merits and the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the matter was renumbered as O.A.No.59/2000, which stood allowed by order dated 27.12.2002. This was confirmed by Ext.P2 in M.F.A.No.166/2004. Hence, as of now, the declaration under Section 3(2) & (3) of the Act of 1971 has become final. 5. At this juncture, the legal heirs of Mathunny approached the Tribunal with an application for restoration of the properties. The Divisional Forest Officer filed Ext.P7 objection to that application. The Tribunal rejected the objection and directed the Custodian to restore the property to the applicants therein, by Ext.P8 order. Ext.P8 order was sought to be reviewed in an I.A, on the ground that the legal heirs of Sethumadhavan Nair were not impleaded in the proceedings before the Tribunal. The learned Senior Counsel took us through the provisions of the Act of 1971, specifically Section 8, which speaks of settlement of disputes. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the nature of the dispute is very clearly delineated in the clauses under Section 8(1) and restoration as is seen from Section 8(3)(b) is a power conferred on the Custodian. The Tribunal is rendered functus officio in so far as the declaration having been made and then the issue of restoring the property has to be considered by the Custodian. In considering the said issue, it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that, restoration can only be “to the person in possession thereof immediately before the appointed day” (sic). In considering the said issue, it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that, restoration can only be “to the person in possession thereof immediately before the appointed day” (sic). The argument raised by the learned Senior Counsel is that the restoration can only be made to the legal heirs of Sethumadhavan Nair and not to the assignees. It is also pointed out that the Custodian had specifically raised a dispute with respect to the assignment deed as seen from Ext.P7. Sri. Dinesh Mathew Muricken, the learned Counsel appearing for the legal heirs of the assignees, would point out that the assignee steps into the shoes of the assignor just as a legal heir succeeds to the title in the event of the title remaining with the owner itself. The title having been passed to the assignee by a registered deed, necessarily the legal heirs step into the shoes of the original assignor and the restoration has to be made to the assignees and not to the legal heirs of the assignor who was in possession of the property at the time of vesting. If a contrary interpretation is taken, then even the legal heirs would not be entitled to get restoration of the property for reason of the original title holder, from whom the possession had been taken, having passed away. The Full Bench decision of this Court in Parameswara Sastrigal K.S. v. State of Kerala 2008 (2) KHC 434 ; is bang on point. 6. The Full Bench was concerned with the question whether an assignee can get the benefit of exemption under Section 3(2) & (3), if his predecessor in interest had that right on the appointed day. It was held that an assignee of the original owner could claim the benefit of exemption before the Tribunal; in which event, the assignee, after the order of the Tribunal affirming the exemption, could seek restoration. We are in perfect agreement that clause (b) of Section 8(3) has to be given a meaningful interpretation, and as held by the Full Bench of this Court, the assignee too gets a valid claim for restoration from the custodian. However, we agree with the learned Senior Counsel that it is not for the Tribunal to direct the Custodian to restore the property to a specified person. However, we agree with the learned Senior Counsel that it is not for the Tribunal to direct the Custodian to restore the property to a specified person. In such circumstances, we find the application filed before the Tribunal to be superfluous in so far as the legal heirs of the assignee having a remedy before the Custodian itself. The legal heirs of the assignee would be entitled to make an application before the Custodian. But, in that context, we have to observe that the impleadment of the legal heirs of the original assignor is not imperative, especially since the power vested in the Custodian is only to restore the properties to the owner or his assignees or to the legal heirs of the owner; if there is no assignment in the life time of the owner. 7. The Custodian is merely conferred with a power to restore and not necessarily to decide on any interse disputes regarding title. The legal heirs of the assignor could take appropriate remedies before the Civil Court and this is not an issue to be agitated before the Custodian. In the teeth of such finding we also have to deal with Ext.P7 objection raised by the Divisional Forest Officer, whom we also notice, is not the Custodian. The Divisional Forest Officer, objected restoration to the legal heirs of Mathunny, on two grounds. First it was contended that Sethumadhavan Nair did not state in the Original Application about the assignment and the document is hence concocted. It was then alleged that, if the documents are held to be genuine, then the O.A. itself would be rendered null and void, since at the time of institution of O.A.No.59/2000, Sethumadhavan Nair was not in possession of the property. We are afraid that the Divisional Forest Officer misguided himself in raising the above contentions. The absence of mention of the assignment made by Sethumadhavan Nair is only because the O.A. was filed prior to the assignment; the assignment having been made after the original order dated 11.08.1977 in the O.A. We have noticed the checkered career of the O.A. in the earlier paragraph from which it is clear that the O.A. was assigned the number 59/2000, by way of renumbering in the Forest Tribunal at Kozhikode, since by that time the Forest Tribunal at Palakkad, wherein the original O.A. was filed, seized to function. Hence, it cannot be said that the O.A. itself would be rendered null and void. 8. On the above reasoning, we leave the legal heirs of the assignee to approach the Custodian for restoration of the property, which shall be considered, bearing in mind, the observations made by us herein above. The legal heirs of the original assignor, if intending to raise a dispute on title, could raise it in appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court. We make it clear that the role of the Custodian is only to make the restoration as a consequence of the declaration made by the Tribunal and it does not empower the Custodian to decide on the genuineness of the document, especially when the same is a registered deed produced before the Custodian. The enquiry could at best be, only into the factum of the applicants being the legal heirs of the assignee. O.P.(FT) No.10/2019 stands disposed of with the above observations and reservations. Ordered accordingly. Parties to suffer their respective costs.