JUDGMENT : K. Vinod Chandran, J. The appeals arise from a common order of the Tribunal, in which the Tribunal mistakenly found that all the applicants are brothers. On going through the title deeds produced in the applications, we find that the applicants in O.A.No.30 of 2008 and O.A.No.35 of 2008 are brothers. We do not see any family connection between the said applicants and the applicant in O.A.No.34 of 2008. However, the property scheduled in the respective applications are lying contiguous and the contentions are also similar. 2. In O.A.Nos.30 & 35 of 2008, the title of the respective applicants is traced to Ext.A1. The parties therein are one Paru Amma, W/o. Krishnan Ezhuthassan and two children Ayyappankutti Ezhuthassan, the applicant in O.A.No.30 of 2008 and Raman Ezhuthassan, the applicant in O.A.No.35 of 2008. The partition was effected on the death of Krishnan Ezhuthassan and the three parties were referred to as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd branches in the partition deed. The scheduled properties in O.A.No.30 of 2008 have an extent of 2.12 Acres in Survey Nos.249/2,3,6A of Kadambazhipuram Village, Alangad Amsom, Ottappalam Taluk, Palakkad District. It was alleged that the lands are not private forests, they do not have the characteristic of a forest and was not governed by the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 [hereafter, 'the MPPF Act']. It was stated that the property was lying as a paramba wherein trees are grown in certain portions and the rest utilised to raise fugitive crops, which was the nature of the land well prior to 10.05.1971 and after that. The surrounding properties are also garden lands and the properties were held in common as also separately after the partition with the intention of carrying on cultivation. The applicant in O.A.No.35 of 2008 raised similar contentions with respect to the properties scheduled therein. The said O.A had two items of properties scheduled, item No.1 having 2.99 Acres in Survey Nos.249/2, 5 & 6 A in the same locality as in O.A.No.30 of 2008. The second item in the same locality has an extent of 1 Acre in Sy.No.252/2, 251/4, 136/1 and 143/3, 132/2 & 243/3. The contentions were identical to that in O.A.No.30 of 2008. 3. With respect to O.A.No.34 of 2008, Ext.A1 partition deed had 3 parties, the applicant and his parents Ayyappan Ezhuthassan and Kali @ Chinnu Amma. The second item in the same locality has an extent of 1 Acre in Sy.No.252/2, 251/4, 136/1 and 143/3, 132/2 & 243/3. The contentions were identical to that in O.A.No.30 of 2008. 3. With respect to O.A.No.34 of 2008, Ext.A1 partition deed had 3 parties, the applicant and his parents Ayyappan Ezhuthassan and Kali @ Chinnu Amma. Four items were scheduled in the said O.A having an extent of 1 Acre in Survey No.134/3, 44 cents in Survey Nos.76/8, 213/1,2, 76/9, 213/3,4, 75 cents in Survey No.134/4 and 5 Acres 12 cents in Survey Nos.249/7, 249/6A,6C,4 & 5 in the same locality as in the other O.As. The contentions to enable an exemption under the Kerala Private Forest [Vesting and Assignment] Act, 1971 [hereafter, 'the Vesting Act'] are identical to that in the other O.As. 4. The respondent disputed the title, possession and enjoyment of the properties by the applicants. According to them the disputed property forms part of a malavaram (slope of hill) known as 'Velankunnu' having wide extent. The whole malavaram is vested under the Vesting Act and it comes under the preview of the MPPF Act. Survey and demarcation of the properties were completed and the scheduled properties were included as VFC item No.56 in the notification dated 10.10.1979. The O.A filed after 29 years is barred by limitation. It was also submitted that the land lies as a forest land without any symptoms of cultivation and even the boundaries stated in the application are not correct. 5. The Tribunal raised issues on whether the applications are barred by limitation, the nature and lie of the properties, the exemption sought under S.3(2) or (3) and the entitlement to the declaration. The ground of limitation was found against the State since there was nothing to prove that the notification was published in accordance with the statutory rules. The definition of private forest under the Vesting Act and the binding precedents; which cast the burden of proving the scheduled lands to be not a private forest on the applicants, were specifically noticed. By virtue of the definition clause and the binding precedents as also the factual findings in the Commissioner's report, it was categorically held that the lands are covered under the MPPF Act, especially since there was no evidence of any cultivation having been carried on in the properties prior to the enactment of the MPPF Act. By virtue of the definition clause and the binding precedents as also the factual findings in the Commissioner's report, it was categorically held that the lands are covered under the MPPF Act, especially since there was no evidence of any cultivation having been carried on in the properties prior to the enactment of the MPPF Act. Having found the property to be covered under the MPPF Act, the claim of exemption was also considered and rejected. 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan, pointed out that there was no valid notification issued under the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Rules, 1974. Since there was no notification, though the Custodian could at any time bring out a notification; as of now the forest officials cannot interfere with the possession of the lands. The above argument was addressed specifically pointing out the finding of the Tribunal regarding the notification having not been published in accordance with the statutory rules, while rejecting the ground of limitation raised by the respondent State. It is argued that the devolution of title is clearly evidenced from the recitals in both the Ext.A1 documents. Reliance is placed on Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2022 (7) KHC 644 to argue that when a document has been admitted, without any objection, the contents of that document are also admitted in evidence. There cannot be any objection allowed to be raised at any later stage, if the document is admitted in evidence without any objection. Ext.A1 clearly establishes title on the applicants, respectively. Even as on the appointed day, the applicants were owners in common who had been cultivating the property. 7. The learned Special Government Pleader Sri. Nagaraj Narayanan pointed out that the notification is only for the purpose of clarity regarding the demarcation of lands vested in the Government and the vesting does not depend upon it. The computation of the period of limitation also commences only from the date of a notification, which is published in accordance with statutory rules. But it does not control vesting of the land which is automatic and statutory as per S.3. It is pointed out that there is nothing but the partition deed to prove title and the deed does not speak of how the properties came into the family of the separate applicants. 8. But it does not control vesting of the land which is automatic and statutory as per S.3. It is pointed out that there is nothing but the partition deed to prove title and the deed does not speak of how the properties came into the family of the separate applicants. 8. First we have to consider the contention regarding the notification being rendered invalid, for not having been published in accordance with the statutory rules. The finding of the Tribunal according to the appellants would interdict the forest officials from interfering with the possession of the lands, even if they are vested12 under S.3. It has to be emphasised that vesting as per the Vesting Act occurs statutorily under S.3(1) and there is absolutely no requirement for a notification as per the statute. A notification is spoken of under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting & Assignment) Rules 1974, under S.2A. It speaks of demarcation of private forests in pursuance of S.6 of the Act, to be affected by erecting cairns along the boundaries. S.6 speaks of demarcation of boundaries of the private forest vested in the Government under sub-section (1) of S.3. Hence, even as per the statute the demarcation is to be carried out, of the private forest vested in the Government, which vesting occurs statutorily upon the enactment coming into force, without anything more. It is to proclaim the vesting that, after demarcation under Rule 2A (1), a notification has to be published as provided under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2A. The publication if statutorily made could also result in the commencement of the limitation period as provided under Rule 3 of the Kerala Private Forest (Tribunal) Rules, 1972. The Tribunal's finding regarding the noncompliance of the statutory rules was only to hold that the application is maintainable and is not barred by the limitation prescribed, for reason of the publication having not been proved to be in accordance with the statutory rules. The notification hence is only for the purposes of demarcation and intimation to all concerned, about the lands vested in the Government under the Vesting Act. We reject the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel. 9. The next question to be considered is as to whether the scheduled lands are private lands covered under the MPPF Act. The Tribunal has found that the scheduled property is covered under the MPPF Act. We reject the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel. 9. The next question to be considered is as to whether the scheduled lands are private lands covered under the MPPF Act. The Tribunal has found that the scheduled property is covered under the MPPF Act. We find no reason to deviate from the said finding especially considering the fact that the vested forest, as surveyed and demarcated, comprises an area exceeding 100 acres and there is nothing to show that there was cultivation carried on in the property prior to 1949; which alone would absolve the property from the application of the MPPF Act. The two Explanations under S.1(2) of the MPPF Act would clearly indicate that only lands which were cultivated prior to 14.12.1949 are taken away from the application of the MPPF Act and even if any cultivation is commenced and continued after 14.12.1949, that would not exempt the land from the applicability of MMPF Act (see State of Kerala v. K.C.Moosa Haji 1984 KLT 494 , paragraph 7 a Full Bench decision). It was held: 'The question is not whether there was a forest in existence in 1971; it is whether there was any land in 1971 to which the M.P.P.F. Act was applicable in 1949 and continued to be under its coverage till 1971. ... Clearly, once the Act was applicable to an area in 1949, nothing done by the owners or others was capable of putting an end to such applicability to that area.' (sic). 10. Now the question arise as to the title to the property, which has to be proved as on 1971. Ext.A1, which is applicable to O.A.Nos.30 & 34 of 2008, was executed in the year 1973, after the appointed day under the Vesting Act. Ext.A1 speaks of the properties having come into the possession of the family by way of various leases like kanam, verumpattam etc. Though an earlier partition is spoken of, there is no specific number quoted or the fact of registration recited. In such circumstance, it cannot be found that the properties were held on the basis of a registered deed as on the appointed day, thus dis-entitling a claim under S.3(3) of the Vesting Act. 11. Both the applicants were examined as PW1 in the respective O.As. In such circumstance, it cannot be found that the properties were held on the basis of a registered deed as on the appointed day, thus dis-entitling a claim under S.3(3) of the Vesting Act. 11. Both the applicants were examined as PW1 in the respective O.As. The applicant in O.A.No.30 of 2008 spoke of only Ext.A1 as the document of title, which we noticed to be of the year 1973. But for a bland statement that there was cultivation in the property, there is nothing stated as to the nature of such cultivation. In fact the specific statement was that, if the scheduled property is released, he intends to cultivate the same with rubber or like crops; which does not sustain a claim for exemption under the Vesting Act as relatable to the appointed day under that Act. In cross-examination, his contention was that he had cultivated the property 35 years back. The deposition was in 2010 and again the cultivation asserted is after the appointed day. He admitted that as of now the property lies as a forest land. He claimed that his father and himself was paying tax on the property and that he had in his custody the revenue receipts; which was not produced before the Court. 12. The applicant in O.A.No.34 of 2008 claimed that the family had jenmam rights on the property, contrary to the title asserted through Ext.A1. He is not sure of the year in which the partition was carried out and also speaks of a partition having been carried out by the father and two brothers, after which there was a further partition between the brothers; none of this evident from the sole document produced. He also had a contrary contention that the properties were entrusted by the Mundekkad Tharwad along with some paddy fields. He claimed cultivation of fugitive crops and also deposed that they were holding the property with the intention to cultivate. In cross-examination he admitted that there are no other deeds regarding the property, but for that produced in Court. He admitted that he had not carried out any cultivation in the property, that there were no big trees in the property and that the property had shrubs in it. He spoke of having been present when the Commissioner inspected the property to whom the boundaries were shown. He admitted that he had not carried out any cultivation in the property, that there were no big trees in the property and that the property had shrubs in it. He spoke of having been present when the Commissioner inspected the property to whom the boundaries were shown. According to him, after the forest officials took over the property, the Village Officer refused to accept the tax. 13. The commission report in O.A.No.30 of 2008 pointed out the mistake in the number of the deed as seen from the application. However, on a reference to the schedule in Ext.A1 and the boundaries thereon, it was difficult to identify the property. Hence based on the boundaries shown in the schedule to the application and the survey numbers, the property was identified and shown in the sketch. The property only had an extent of 1 Acre 45 cents as calculated from the measurements shown in the schedule to the application, while in the application the extent claimed was 2.12 Acres. It was found on the basis of actual measurement of the property in the survey numbers seen in the application that it had an extent of 1.68 Acres. Hence there was no clarity as to the extent and identity of the property. The property scheduled could not be identified from the schedule of the title deed. The Commissioner also noticed that there was absolutely no signs of cultivation in the property and that it was full of vegetation having height of 5 to 7 feet. The land was lying as a slope and had forests on the western & southern boundaries, a rubber plantation also on the south and the properties in the other O.As on the eastern and northern boundaries. 14. The Commissioner's report in O.A.No.35 of 2008 also indicated that the properties could not be identified on the basis of the boundaries stated in the schedule and the subject properties were shown in the sketch only on the basis of survey numbers seen in the schedule to the application, and as pointed out by the applicant. The properties were found in Survey Nos.136/1,2 & 242/2,5,6A. The nature of the properties were as stated in the other O.A, ie. without any signs of cultivation and filled with vegetation having 5 to 7 feet height. The properties were found in Survey Nos.136/1,2 & 242/2,5,6A. The nature of the properties were as stated in the other O.A, ie. without any signs of cultivation and filled with vegetation having 5 to 7 feet height. The properties in schedule No.136/1 ,2 had forest on its two boundaries, the scheduled land in O.A.No.34 of 2008 on its west and residential property on the north. The properties in Survey No.249/2,5,6A had the properties scheduled in the other O.As on the three boundaries and a rubber plantation on the south. The total extent of the properties were found to be 1.17 acres in 136/1,2 and 2.32 acres in 249/2,5,6A, while in the application, respective extents were shown as 1 Acre and 2.99 Acres in the respective survey numbers. Again there is no clear identity established and the property as revealed from the sketch is that pointed out by the applicant. 15. O.A.No.34 of 2008 refers to another title deed, which was marked as Ext.A1 in that O.A. As we observed earlier, we do not find any family connection between the applicant herein and those in the other O.As. Ext.A1 refers to a partition deed of 1966 bearing No.162 and then speaks of other properties purchased also included in Ext.A1. There is no specification either in the deed, in the schedule to the application or in the testimony of the witness as to which are the properties included in the earlier partition deed and those that were purchased and held in common by the family. Again, we have to find the property having been held on 10.05.1971, without a registered deed, thus dis-entitling the claim under S.3(3). The applicant, who is examined as PW1, spoke of only Ext.A1 document. He spoke of fugitive cultivation of tapioca and moden in the property and also deposed that during 1971 the property was held with the intention to cultivate. In cross-examination, he admitted that there would be receipts issued insofar as the lease rent paid to the janmi, which was not produced. He also spoke of having remitted tax in the Village Office, the receipts of which were not produced. He testified that there are witnesses to speak on the cultivation carried on in the property in 1971, but none were examined. PW1 asserted that he had obtained pattayam for the lands, which was not produced. He also spoke of having remitted tax in the Village Office, the receipts of which were not produced. He testified that there are witnesses to speak on the cultivation carried on in the property in 1971, but none were examined. PW1 asserted that he had obtained pattayam for the lands, which was not produced. The Commissioner found that the properties in survey No.134/3 could not be found from the title deed, from either the description of the property or the boundaries. Again, the property was identified in various survey numbers, which were not discernible from the title deed. The identification was only based on the unsubstantiated numbers indicated in the schedule to the application. The condition of the properties were also, as found in the other O.As; without any sign of cultivation and filled with vegetation having 5 to 6 feet. The boundaries of the various items of property seen in different survey numbers show forest on more than one boundary and also the other properties scheduled in the other O.As. 16. The testimony of the respective witnesses do not even speak of the exact nature of cultivation carried on in the property as on 10.05.1971. As we noticed, the claim under S.3(3) cannot survive, since as on the appointed day, the property was not held on the strength of a registered deed. The decision cited by the learned Senior Counsel, Neeraj Dutta has no application since the recitals in the document, the title deed, gives no clue as to the specific scheduled properties having been held on the strength of any registered document as on the appointed day. The only title deed produced in the separate applications are partition deeds, that too, of the year 1973, after the appointed day. Premakumari and others v. State of Kerala and another [ 2017(4) KLT 531 ], held that a partition deed makes only the division of the property, without any acquisition or conferment of title and therefore, cannot be deemed to be a valid registered document of title as envisaged in S.3(3) of the Vesting Act. It was further held that a partition deed, to be reckoned as a valid registered document of title, should be coupled with the prior registered document. 17. It was further held that a partition deed, to be reckoned as a valid registered document of title, should be coupled with the prior registered document. 17. We also notice that the Commissioner was not able to identify the property from the boundaries shown in the application schedule and the sketch drawn was on the basis of the land pointed out by the applicants found in the survey numbers. The identity of the property hence could not be clearly ascertained with reference to the title deed. Here, we have to notice Hamsa Haji vs. State of Kerala [(2006) 7 SCC 416]. which held so: “30. We thus confirm the decision of the High Court and dismiss the appeal with costs. We hope that this judgment will act as an eyeopener to the Forest Tribunals and the High Court exercising appellate jurisdiction in dealing with claims (obviously now they are belated claims) for exemption or exclusion under Section 8 of the Act. It behooves the Forest Tribunals and the appellate court to carefully scrutinise the case of title and possession put forward by claimants as also the identities of the lands sought to be claimed, while entertaining applications under Section 8 of the Act.” [underlining by us for emphasis] 18. We have read through the depositions of the three applicants, which do not speak of any cultivation as on 10.05.1971. The Commissioner also did not find any signs of cultivation in the property. The scheduled land existed with thick vegetation of undergrowth to a height of 5 to 7 feet. We find no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and dismiss the appeals leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs.