# RAJ KUMAR RAJINDER SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS - **Citation:** [1990] 3 S.C.R. 469 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1990-07-20 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2966 of 1979 - **Bench:** S. Rangana1'Han, A.M. Ahmadi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/raj-kumar-rajinder-singh-v-state-of-himachal-pradesh-and-others-10890 - **Pages:** 28 ## Headnote Himachal Pradesh Private Forest Act, 19S4: Section 2(b), 4 and 11-State Government-Whether entitled to issue notification declaring private land as forest land. Indian Forest Act, 1927-Section 29: Applicability to 'private forests'. Indian Evidence Act: Section 92: Glaim based on document4 Whether oral evidence permissible to guide the Court in regardto intention of parties. The plaintiff /appellant is the second son of late Raja Padam Singh, the ex-ruler of Bushabr State in Himachal Pradesh. The erstwhile Ruler of Bushabr had sought the aid of the British Government in the management of his forests with a view to preserving, conserving and protecting the same from large-scale illicit and indiscriminate cutting of A B c D tr~s. Pursuant to this request, an agreement of lease dated 20th June, E 186 R.R. SINGH v. STATE OF H.P. 471 about 263.5 bighas, and not in respect of the forest lands; and that the "· notification under section 29 of the Indian Forest Act was validly issued and so long as it held the field, no notification could be issued under section 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Private Forests Act, 1954. Allowing the appeal, this Court, HELD: (1) The plaintiff's father had a surviving and subsisting . right in the forest lands which the subject matter of the lease dated 25th .. September, 1942 and was competent to grant the same to the plaintiff or anyone else, albeit subject to the terms of the lease. [486CJ (2) The paramount object of the lease was to conserve the forests of Bushahr State. By concluding the lease agreement with th~ ,.Punjab Government, the Raja did not convey all his rights, title and inftrest in .:-.. the leased forest lands to the Government. All that he did was to transA B c fer the control and management of the forests to the Punjab Government with a view to preserving and conserving the forests. He however retained his proprietory interest in the forest lands. Had it been the o intention of the Raja to divest himself of all his interests in the forest lands, there was no need to provide the duration of the lease on the expiry whereof (unless the renewal clause was invoked) the Raja would have a right of re-entry. [48SG-H; 486A] (3) The lease provided that in addition to the two half-yearly E instalments of Rs.50,000 each, the Raja was to receive payment of "whole net surplus" on the working of the forests included in the lease. This was consistent only with the position that the Raja retained his proprietory interests in the forest lands. [486A-B] ( 4) If the terms of the document are clear and unambiguous, F extrinsic evidence to ascertain the true intention of the parties is inadmissible heca1L..e section 92 of the Evidence Act mandates that in such a case the intention must be gathered from the language employed in the document. But if the language employed is ambiguous and admits of a variety of meanings, it is settled law that the 6th proviso to the section can be invoked which permits tendering of extrinsic evidence as to acts, G conduct and surrounding circumstances to enable the Court to ascertain the real intention of the parties. [49IB-C] In such a case the subsequent conduct of the parties furnished evidence to clear the blurred area and to ascertain the true intention of the author of the document. I 49 ID I lo! A B c D 472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R. Abdulla Ahmed v. Animendra Kissen Mitter, [1950] SCR 30, referred to. (5) Since the words 'part of the uncultivated Jagir' were amhiguous, extrinsic evidence aHunde the grant became necessary to explain the coverage of those words. [492A] (6) There is intrinsic evidence to show that the grant was not limited to only the revenue yielding area of 263.4 bighas. If l>y the grant the Raja intended to grant only the revenue yieldin_g_ area of 263 .4 blghas; there was no need to mention 'and part of uncultivated Jagir' and these words would be rendered redundant. The subsequent conduct of the parties lends support to this view. l 488H; 489 Al (7) From the various documents placed on record it is quite clear that the disputed forests did not belong to the Government nor did the Government have any proprietory rights therein. The Government was also not 'entitled' to the wh_ole or any part of the produce in Its own right dehors the lease. [493C] (8) The word 'entitled' in the context of section 29 of the Indian Fores! Act must take colour from the preceding words and must be understood to mean that the Government must have an independent claim or right to collect and deal with the same subject to an obllgation E to account for the same to the owner. On that account the State was not 'entitled' to the forests eroduce from such private lands. Therefore, the notification issued under section 29 could have no application to such private forests. The State Government was, therefore, competent to issue the two notific11tlons under section 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Private Forest Act, 1954 and it was not justified in ammlling them on F the erroneous premise that the said lands belonged to the State Government. [493F; 494F-G] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2966 of 1979. G From the Judgment and Order dated 31.12.1977 of the High Court ofHimachai Pradesh in R.F.A. No. 7 of 1970. F.S. Nariman, V.A. Bobde, S.D. Mudaliar and C.K. Ratnaparkhi for the Appellant. H K.G. Bhagat, Naresh K. Sharma for the Respondents. ,,, ')o._ ~ ,..; { - - ) R.R. SINGH v. STATE OF H.P. {AHMADI, J.J 473 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AHMADI, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Regular First Appeal No. 7 of 1970 arising out of Suit No. 11 of 1987. The appellant-original plaintiff-is the second son of late Raja Padam Singh, the ex-ruler of Bushahr State. He filed a suit on 18th November, 1964 principally against the Union of India and the Government of the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh for a declaration of his proprietory rights in about 1720 acres of forest land situate in Khatas Nos. 1 & 2, Khataunis Nos. 1 to 25 comprising 106 plots, both measured and unmeasured, bearing Khasra Nos. 1, 2, 6, 23,30,34,44, 108,218,222,309,341,409,479,606,433,241, 732/280, 736/394 and 728/402 of Chak Addu, tehsil Rampur, in the present district of Mahasu in Himachal Pradesh. He traced his title to the said lands to a Patta executed by his father on 14th Maghar 1999, Bikrami, ..._ i.e. 28th November 1942A.D., and to the Order No. 5158of even date directing corresponding mutation changes. In the said suit Choudhary Go pal Singh & Co., a forest contractor, was added as proforma defendant No. 3 but no relief was claimed against the said party. The said suit was filed on 18th November, 1964 in the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge, Mahasu, but on the upward revisim1 of the suit valuation for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction the plaint was presented to the High Court of Delhi, Himachal Bench, Shimla, and was re-numbered as Suit No. 11 of 1967. The said suit was tried on the original side of the High Court by Jagjit Singh, J. who by his judgment and order dated 6th April, 1970 substantially decreed the suit, in that, he upheld the appellant-plaintiff's claim of ownership in respect of Khatas Nos. 1 & 2, Khataunis Nos. 1 to 25 comprising 106 plots bearing khasra Nos. 1, 2, 6, ~3, 30, 34, 44, 108, 218, 222, 309, 341, 409, 606, 4 and 33 situate in Chak'Addu without prejudice to the application, if any, of Section 27 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953. The contesting defendants Nos. 1 and 2 preferred an appeal, being Regular First Appeal No. 7 of 1970, before the Division Bench of the High Court which came to be allowed on 31st December, 1977. The Division Bench came to the conclusion that the grant made by the erstwhile ruler was in respect of revenue yielding lands only admeasuring about 263.4 bighas and not in respect of the forest lands. It, however, took the view that after the execution of the lease-deed dated 25th September, 1942, Exh.D-1, in favour of the Government of Punjab, the Raja had no subsisting right in the forest lands in question which,he could transfer by way of a grant. In that view of the matter the appeal was allowed and the suit of lhe A B c D F G B A B c D E r G H 474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 1990] 3 S.C.R. plaintiff was dismissed in toto with costs throughout. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the original plaintiff has preferred this appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution. For the sake of convenience we will refer to the parties by their original position and description in the suit. We now proceed to set out the relevant facts. The Raja of Rampur-Bushahr had sought the aid of the Birtish Government in the management of his forests with a view to preserving, conserving and protecting the same from large-scale illicit and indiscriminate cutting of trees. Pursuant to this request an agreement dated 20th June, 1864 was executed between the said Raja and the British Government whereunder a fixed royalty was agreed to be paid to the former. By a subsequent agreement dated 1st August, 1871, the Raja granied his rights in waif and windfall timber to the British Government in consideration of certain payments agreed upon under the said agreement. The terms of both these agreements were revised in 1877 whereby the British Government agreed to pay a fixed annual sum to the Raja on a fifty years' lease renewable at the will of the British Government. This arrangement was further revised in 1929 w.e.f. 1st November, 1928 for a period of twenty five years on agreed terms as to payments, etc. During the subsistence of the said agreement, the parties executed yet another agreement of lease dated 25th September, 1942, Exh. D-1, for a term of fifty years w.e.f. 1st April, 1941 superseding all previous agreements. Under clause (II) thereof, the term 'forest' was defined to mean and include (a) demarcated forests; (b) forests reserved for the use of the Raja; and (c) undemarcated forests. Demarcated forests were those which were defined and stated as demarcated forests in the forest settlements of Bushahr State whereas undemarcated forests included (a) all tracts of land bearing tree growth or from which the trees were felled and which paid no land revenue as cultivated land to the Bushahr State; and (b) such other tracts of land, cultivated or uncultivated, as with the previous sanction of the Raja were from time to time included in the existing undemarcated forests or were declared to be undemarcated forests. By clause (III) of the said document, the Raja granted to the Punjab Government 'the entire and sole control of the whole of the forests of Bushahr excepting those reserved for the use of the Raja'. The Raja was to receive an annual payment of Rs.1 lakh to be paid in two equal half-yearly instalments of Rs.50,000 on 30th Apn1and31st of October of each year. In addition to the said amount of .Rs.1 lakh he was to receive payment of the whole net surplus on the working of the forests included in the lease. Thus, according to clause (III) of the lease ( - - K.R. SINGH v. STATE OF H.P. [AHMADI, J.] 475 agreement the Raja granted to the Punjab Government the entire and /. sole control of the forests of Bushahr, excepting those reserved for his \ use under clause (II) thereof. Under Section 1 of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, as from 15th August, 1947, two independent Dominions of lndia and Pakistan came to be set up. By virtue of section 4 the Province of the Punjab B ______c,( as constituted under the Government of India Act, 1935, ceased to exist and the same was reconstituted into two new Provinces of West ~ Punjab and East Punjab. In section 7(1) were set out the consequences of the setting up of the two Dominions, Paragraph (b) whereof said that 'the suzerainty of His Majesty over the Indian States lapses, and with it, all treaties and agreements in force at the date of passing of this c - Act between His Majesty and the rulers of Indian States'. The plaintiff's father Raja Padam Singh having died in April 1947, his elder son Tikka Vir Bhadra Singh born to his first wife Shanta Devi .. succeeded to the Gaddi under the rule of primogeniture but since he was a minor a council for the administration of Bushahr State was set up to mind the affairs of the State. On 15th April, 1948 an agreement D of merger was signed whereby the ·Raja of Bushahr ceded to the Dominion of India 'full and exclusive authority, jurisdiction and powers for and in relation to the governance of the State'. A centrally administered unit of Himachal Pradesh came into being on that day. The agreement of lease dated 25th September, 1942 was formally ter- '""~· minated by mutual agreement between the East Punjab Government E and the Himachal Pradesh Administration on 1st April, 1949. ""!;... While the forests of Bushahr were under the control and man- .., agement of the Government of Punjab, Raja Padam Singh, the plaintiff's father, executed a document on 14th Maghar 1999. Bikrami (i.e. 28th November, 1942) whereby he bestowed upon the plaintiff F ) and his mother Rani Sahiba Katochi land admeasuring about 1720 acres. This original document called the Patta was admittedly lost during the minority of the plaintiff, vide statement of counsel for defendants Nos. 1 and 2 dated 29th May, 1969. However, the factum of the grant cannot be disputed as it has been referred to in the subsequent two grants executed by the plaintiff's father on 29th Phagun G 1999, Bikrami (i.e. 11th March, 1943-Exh. P-2) and 24th Maghar 2003, Bikrami (i.e. 10th December, 1946-Exh. P-1). These two sub- .. sequent grants Exh. P-1 and Exh. P-2 have been proved through the evidence of the scribe· PW 1 Thakur Chet Ram. By the execution of the third grant dated 24th Maghar 2003, Bikrami, the half share granted to the Rani Sahiba Katochi nuder the first grant of 14th Maghar 1999, H A B c D 476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 3 S.C.R . Bikrami, was transferred to the plaintiff with the Rani Sahiba's consent. Thus, the plaintiff became the sole grantee of the entire ar~a of 1720 acres but as he was a minor his interest was looked after initially by his father who expired in April 1947 and thereafter by his mother Rani Sahiba Katochi as his natural guardian. After the execution of the first grant of patta the plaintiff's father made an Order No. 5158 of even date directing his revenue officers to effect consequential changes in the mutation. Exh. P-6 is a copy of the mutation entry which contains the following endorsement: "According to Shri Sarkar's order No. 5158 dated 14.7.99 (equivalent to 28th November, 1942), the mutation, granting permanent ownership, without condition, of khata khatauni Nos. 1/1to20 and 2/21to25, plots 106, measuring 263.4 (219. 7 plus 43.17) and part of uncultivated Jagir the revenue and swai of which has been remitted is sanctioned in favour of Rani Sahiba Katochi and Rajkumar Rajinder Singh Sahib in equal shares in its present form." The mutation entry Exh. P-6 does not mention the khasra numbers of the !06 plots. Khata khatauni No. 1/1 to 20 comprise 82 plots showing an area admeasuring 219.7 bighas as cultivated and 200.8 bighas as uncultivated whereas khata khatauni No. 2/21 to 25 comprise 24 plots showing an area admeasuring 5.6 bighas as cultivated and 38.11 bighas E as uncultivated. The mutation entry, besides mentioning the area of 263.4 bighas, also speaks of 'part of uncultivated Jagir the revenue ancf swai of which has been remitted'. Even according to the Division ~Bench of the High Court it is not in dispute that the measurement of 106 plots is much more than 263.4 bighas. This stands corroborated by the note of Mr. Raina, the then Conservator of Forests, Shimla Circle F dated 24th July, 1960 which discloses that the disputed pli>ts over which the plaintiff has made a claim admeasure about 1819 acres. By the second grant of 29th Phagun 1999, Bikrami, the plaintiff's father granted certain additional land, namely, Basa Sharotkhala Pargana Bhatoligarh, jointly to the plaintiff and his mother Rani Sahiba Katochi. This grant refers to the first grant of 14th Maghar 1999, G Bikrami. The third grant of 24th Maghar 2003, Bikrami, was executed by the plaintiff's father with a view to making the plaintiff the sole beneficiary under the first two grants by deleting the name of Rani Sahiba Katochi as a joint grantee with her consent. There is no dispute that under the aforesaid three grants taken together the properties mentioned therein were bestowed upon the plaintiff exclusively and H the Rani Sahiba Katochi had no share therein, nor did she, at any \_. R.R. SINGH v. STAIB OF H.P. [AHMADI, J.) 477 time, make a claiin thereto. After the execution of the third grant an '\ order No. 258 dated 3rd December, 1946, Exh. P-14, was made by the plaintiff's father directing that all the lands and 'bases' granted under the Patta of 24th Maghar 2003, Bikrami, exclusively to the plaintiff shm)id ne shown in his sole name in the records by deleting the name of Rani Sahiba Katochi therefrom. On the death of the plaintiff's father in April 1947, the Political Agent, Punjab Hill States, Shimla, wrote a letter Exh. P-50 dated 9th August, 1947 expressing dissatisfaction with the non-implementation of the Patta and directed speedy -< implementation thereof. In paragraph 3 of the said letter it was stated as under: "There is only one point for decision and that is the validity of the patta dated 19th December, 1946 granted by the late Raja Padam Singh. The Committee have not questioned this and I, therefore, take it to be the true will of the late ruler. The provision of the Patta are quite clear and reasonable, so I order the division of the private property, both movable and immovable, in accordance with its terms, that is to say the possession of the immovable property of the late Ruler specified in the Patta shall at once be mutuated in favour of Rajkumar Rajinder Singh and given in trust to Rani Sahiba katochi on behalf of her minor son ..... ". r---· The grant was ultimately given effect to be the mutation entry No. 2299 dated 17/18-12-2003, Bikrami, Exh. P-13. Unfortunately, the plaintiff's mother who acted as his guardian after the death of her husband in April 1947 also passed away shortly thereafter on 22nd July, 1949 necessitating the Court of Wards to step-in since the plaintiff was still a minor. While the plaintiff's estate was under_ the Superintendence of the Court of Wards a list of his Jagirs was prepared. This list Exh. P-18, which is in respect of tehsil Rampur, describes the disputed khasra Nos. 341, 108, 222, 34, 479, 606 and 4 as unmeasured and forest lands. On the plaintiff attaining majority his estate was released w .e.f. 1st April, 1956 from the Superintendence of the Court of Wards under the Financial Commissioner's notification dated 24th March, 1956. Owing to the existence of certain pillars of the forest department within the areas belonging to the plaintiff, the plaintiff made a representation Exh. P-25 for the removal of the said pillars from his lands. As a result of this representation, joint demarcation reports dated 24th June 1958, Exh. P-5, and 9th December, 1958, Exh. P-8, were made which disclosed that the dispute related to the boundary in compartment 8-b only but no final decision could be taken I - ) A B c D E F G H A B c D E F 4'.78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1990) 3 S:C:R. as some difference of opinion persisted between the officers of the · forest department in this behalf. The plaintiff thereafter made a ~ further representation dated 11th August, 1959, Exh. D-2, claiming compensation for the trees cut by the forest department during his minority when the estate was under the Superintendence of the Court of Wards. As a sequel to this representation Mr. Raina, the Conservator of Forests, wrote a letter dated 27th May, 1960 marked secret, Exh. D-3/4, wherin l)e stated that the first class forest compartments !UA (Part, lOB (Part), 9A, 9B, 9C and 8C were the property of the forest department and the question of demarcation of these forests ,_. did not arise. He further pointed out that if the possession of these compartments is transferred to the plaintiff the department will have to undergo a loss of Rs.18. 75 lakhs. Lastly, he warned that if the plaintiff's claim is accepted numerous such claims will be made by the villagers because of similar entries in the revenue records. He thought that this was a test case. He followed this up by his note dated 24th • July, 1960, Exh. D-3/6, wherein he reiterated that except for 263.4 bighas of revenue yielding land the claim of the plaintiff in respect of the remaining 1719 acres was fantastic. He strongly urged that the plaintiff's claim should be rejected outright and he and his contractor, defendant No. 3, should not be allowed to lift the timber of the trees which he was permitted to cut from khasra Nos. 341, 606, 222 and 34 under the letter No. Ft/43-124NI dated 29th February, 1959. Thereafter the Divisional Forest Officer by his letter No. C-11-37/810 dated 25th May, 1960 informed the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 that the timber felled in compartment 9C should not be removed and no further felling of trees should take place in compartments 8C, 9A, 9B and lOA (Part) and lOB (Part) in khasra No. 341. By a subsequent letter No. CII-37/1181 dated 2nd August, 1960 the plaintiff was informed that the trees felled in compartments 9B and 9C were Government property and could be removed on payment of Rs.3,05,811.70. An amount of Rs.3,36,000 was later deposited pending finalisation of the dispute. Certain statutory developments which took place in the medlltime-maynow be noticed. On 25th February, 1952 the Government of G Himachal Pradesh issued a Notification under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 declaring that the provisions of Chapter IV of the said enactment shall apply to all forest lands and waste lands in Himac- { ... hal Pradesh which are the property of the Government or over which >r the Government has proprietary rights or to the whole or any part of the produce of which the Government is entitled. This enactment deals H with (i) Reserved Forests, (ii) Village Forests and (iii) Protected R.R. SINGH v. STAIB OF H.P. [AHMADI,-J.] 479 Forests. Chapter II comprising Sections 3 to 27 deals with Reserved '- Forests, Chapter III which consists of a single section 28 refers to Village Forests and Chapter IV comprising Sections 29 to 34 conncerns Protected Forests. Section 29(1) empowers the State Governmenc to apply the provisions of Chapter IV to 'any forest land or waste land which is not included in the Reserved Forests but which is the property of the Government, or over which the Government has proprietory rights, or to the whole or any part of the forest produce of which 'the ._. Government is entitled. According to sub-section (2) such forest land and/or waste land comprised in any such notification shall be called a 'protected forest'. Section 32 empowers the State Government to make rules to regulate the ·matters catalogued in clauses (a} to (1) thereof in respect of protected forests, which, inter alia, include the cutting, sawing, conversion and removal of trees and timber and collection, manufaciure and removal of forest produce from protected 4. forests; the granting of licences to personsfelling or removing trees or timber or other forest pro~W:e-from such forest for the purposes of trade; the payments, if any, to be made by Stich licencees in respect of such tree, timber or forest produce, etc. Section 33 prescribes the penalty for the contravention of the rules. After the issuance of the Notification Exh. DW-1/1 under Section 29, the State Government framed the rules under Section 32, Exh. DW-1/2, of even date. Under these rules 'First Class Protected Forests' mean and include those ;------>· forests which are defined and stated as demarcated forests in the Forests Settlement of Bushahr State viz., Forest Settlement Report of Sutlej Valley and Forest Settlement Report of Rupi, Pabar and Girl Valleys prepared in 1921 and 1911, respectively. 'Second Class Protected Forests' mean the undemarcated forests or areas other than the demarcated forests and include all tracts of land bearing tree growth or from which the trees have been felled which pay no land revenue as cultivated land. The Himachal Pradesh Private Forests Act, 1954, (Act No. VI of 1955) came into force from 28th June, 1956. Section 2 thereof in terms states that the Act shall not apply to any land which is a reserved or protected forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Section 4 empowers the State Government to prohibit by notification the cutting, felling, gridling, lopping, burning, stripping off the bark or leaves or otherwise damaging any tree or counterfeiting or defacing marks on trees or timber in such private forests as may be specified. Under Section 5, after the section 4 notification is issued, the Forest Officer is required within a period of one year from the date of publication of such notification, to demarcate the limit of such forest in accordance A B c D E F G H B c D E 'F G H 480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R. with the revenue records ancl erect such number of boundary pillars uC such points of the line of demarcation as may be necessary at Govern- / ment expense. Once the notification-is issued under Section 4, Section 6 restrains the landlord and all other persons from cutting, collecting, or removing trees, timber or other produce in or from the notified forests in contravention of the provisions made in or under the Act. Section 11, however, au\horises a Forest Officer on the application of ') the landlord or owner to grant a licence for the felling-of tret-s for such purposes and with such contitions as he may deem proper. Snb-section .,_ (3) of that section permits the owner to exercise the option of selling the trees either through the Forest Department or direct to any contractor. In the latter event the owner must pay 15% fees on the price of the trees calculated in accordance with the prescribed principle>. Section 16 makes a contract entered into by the owner with any person conferring on such person the right to cut, collect or remove trees, timber or fuel from the private forests void unless the owner has first .> obtained a licence in this behalf under Sectionll. By notification dated 10th June, 1959, Exh. P-21 published in the Himachal Pradesh Government Gazette dated 25th June, 1959, the plaintiff's forests in Khasra Numbers 1, 2, 3, 218, 606, 149, 263 and 166 situate in Village Addu were declared 'private forests' under Section 4 of the said statute. By a similar notification dated 17th September, 1959, Exh. P-22, published in the Himachal Pradesh Government Gazette dated 26th September, 1959, Khasra Numbers 34, 309, 108, 479, 307, 207 __ and 317 situate in Village Addu were also notified as private forests of the plaintiff under the same provision. The expression 'Private Forests' as defined by Section 3( 13) of the Act means a forest which is not the property of the Government or over which the State has no proprietary rights or to the whole or any part of the forest-produce of which the State is not entitled. Subsequently, by Corrigendum Exh. P-29 dated 28th July, 1960, the State Government deleted Khasra Numbers 1, 2, 3, 218, 6, 44, 606, 149, 263 and '166 of Village Addu from the notification of 10th June, 1959 and Khasra Numbers 34, 309, 108, 479, 307, 207 and 370 of Village Addu from the notification dated 17th September, 1959 on the ground that they were erroneously notified as they in fact belonged to tlie Himachal Pradesh Administration. After the said enactment came into force w.e.f. 28th June, 1956 and before the notifications under Section 4 thereof were issued, the plaintiff had by his application dated 21st May, 1957 applied for permission, presumably under Section 11 of the Act, to fell trees from Khasra Numbers 1, 222 & 606 of Village Addu. The said permission R.R. SINGH v. STATE OF H.P. [AHMADI, J.] 481 was granted by Exh. P-20 and the plaintiff also paid the fee as \ demanded by Exh. P-23 dated 23rd August, 1957. By another application dated 16th February, 1959 the plaintiff sought permission to sell trees from khasra Numbers 34, 222, 341, 606ofKhewat No. 1, Khatauni No. 2 which was granted by the Chief Conservator of Forests by his letter Exh. P-28 dat.ed 19th 'February, 1959. By the said letter the plaintiff was informed that the Divisional Forest Officer had been instructed to mark the trees in the said areas silviculturally and to allow him to sell and remove the same through his contractor (de- ~ fendant No. 3). However, the attitude of the Government underwent a change after Mr. Raina's secret letter of 27th May, 1960 and his note dated 24th July, 1960. The State Government issued a corrigendum dated 28th July, 1960 amending the earlier notifications issued under Section 4; restrained the plaintiff and his agent defendant No. 3, from cutting and lifting the trees from the forest area and compelled deposit of Rs.3,36,000 for removing the trees and was also required to execute a bond. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit which has given rise to this appeal to assert his rights. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record came to the conclusion that (i) the plaintiff's father, who in internal matters had sovereign powers, had bestowed the lands in dispute as a perpetual and unconditional grant on the plaintiff and the mere fact that in the mutation entry the area was shown to be 263.4 bighas did not iinply that the grant was limited to that much land only. He held that (ii) in the Stae ofBushahr only cultivated land was generally measured and forest lands remained unmeasured and, therefore, the area of only revenue yielding cultivated land was mentioned in the mutation entry but that did not mean that the grant was confined to that area only. He also held that the subsequent grant of 25.10.2003 Bikrami was executed by the plaintiff's father with the concurrence of Rani Saheba Katochi, with a view to conferring exclusive ·proprietory rights in the entire grant on the plaintiff. Further according to the learned Trial Judge, the evidence, considered as a whole, fully established that (iii) the grant was not repudiated but was given effect to by the Political Agent, Shimla, as well as by the revenue authorities of Bushahr State and was recognised by the Dominion of.India at the time of the State's merger. He found that in the statement of the Zamindars of Village Addu, Exh. P-26, it was specifically admitted that the forest comprised Khasra Nos. 34, 141, 222 and 606 Khewat No. 1, Khatauni No. 2 and was 'owned' and was 'in possession' of the plaintiff. (iv) Assuming that the lands in dispute formed part of forests leased to the Government of Punjab, A B c 0 E F G H A B 482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11990) 3 S.C.R. the learned Judge held that the Raja was not precluded from makmg the grant and the grants made in favour of the plaintiff were perfectly legal and valid. After the lease was terminated by mutual consent of the Governments of Himachal Pradesh and East Punjab, the Himachal Pradesh Administration treated the plaintiff as the owner and permitted him various acts as owner and Jferson in possession. Notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Private I Forest Act, 1954 declaring the disputed lands as privte forests. He held ~- c that the notification issued under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act had no application. According to him, except for an area of 11 biswas occupied by roads of the Forest Department, the plaintiff was in possession of the remaining forest lands. The learned Trial Judge, therefore, held that the suit was neither barred by limitation nor on account of Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. The other technical objections to the maintainability of the suit were spumed and the learned Trial Judge decreed the suit as stated earlier. On appeal the Division Bench of the High Court came to the D conclusion that when the plaintiff's father executed the first grant in favour of the plaintiff he was aware that he had renewed the lease in respect of the forest lands for a period of fifty years and, therefore, he could not have intended to make an absolute grant in respect of the forest lands covered under the lease to the plaintiff. According to the Division Bench after the execution of the agreement of lease dated E 25th September, 1942, (v) the plaintiffs father had no surviving or subsisting right in the lands covered under the lease and, therefore, the grant in respect of the forest lands was of no cnsequence and did not confer any right, title or interest in the plaintiff. At the most the grant could take effect in respect of revenue yeilding cultivated land admeasuring 263.4 bighas. In supprot of this finding the Division Bench F points out (1) that the grant Exh. P-1 dated 10th December, 1946 refers to the lands by Basa and not Khasra which reveals that reference is only to revenue yielding area in the occupation of tenants; (2) that cluase 2 of Exh. P-2 shows that the intention of the grantor was to secure an annual income of Rs.9,000 for his son which could only be from the revenue yielding lands as the forest lands were already placed G at the disposal of the Government of Punjab and (3) that the recital in Exh. P-2 regarding handing over of tl:e Basajat could be in respect of revenue yeilding area only as the forests were already in the possession of the Punjab Government. The bivision Bench also held that the notification under Section 29 of the Indian Forests Act was validly issued and so long as it held the field, no notification could be issued H under Section 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Private Forest Act, 1954 and -. R.R. SINGH v. STATE OF H.P. [AHMADI, J.} 483 . the same were, therefore, rightly correCted by deleting the Khasra Numbers claimed by the plaintiff from the notified forest area. It, therefore, held that the said two notifications issued under Section 4 had no efficacy in law and the permissions granted under Section 11 of the said law can be of no avail to the plaintiff. As regards the plaintiff's contention based on the surrender of the lease in 1949, the Division Bench concluded that the exchange of letters Exh. DW-1/3A dated 25th April, 1949 by Himachal Pradesh Government and Exh. DW-1/ 3B dated 5/9th May, 1949 by the East Punjab Government revealed that an arrangement was worked out whereunder the East Pun jab Government transferred the management and administration of the . disputed forests to the Himachal Pradsh Government on certain terms and conditions and there was no completed surrender of the lease. Adopting this approach, the Division Bench reversed the findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge and dismissed the plaintiff's suit in 4 toto with costs throughout. It is against the said Judgment and decree that the plaintiff has moved this Court. From the above resume of facts and findings recorded by the Courts below, the questions which arise for our determination and on which counsel for the rival sides addressed us may be formulated as under: 1. Whether, by the execution of the Agreements of Lease from time to time beginning with the Agreement of 20th June, 1864 and ending with the Agreement of 25th September, 1942, the erstwhile Rulers of Bushahr State, including the plaintiff's father, had been divested of all their rights, title and interests in the forest lands leased thereunder? 2.