Adverse possession against the Crown failed where claimants could not prove exclusive possession for the statutory period.

An appeal from the District Court under the Madras Forest Act was held to remain subject to ordinary appellate review because the special forest-settlement procedure did not expressly exclude the usual incidents of civil litigation; the objection to maintainability therefore failed. On title to islands formed de novo in the sea within territorial limits, such land was treated as Crown property, and the claimant had to prove adverse possession for the full statutory period. The evidence did not establish exclusive or adverse possession before 1882, so the prescriptive claim failed and title remained with the Crown. The High Court decision was set aside and the District Court's dismissal restored with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an appeal from the District Court under the Madras Forest Act lay to the ordinary courts of appeal notwithstanding the statutory scheme for forest settlement proceedings; (ii) Whether the claimants had established title by adverse possession against the Crown to islands formed in the sea within the territorial limits.

Issue (i): Whether an appeal from the District Court under the Madras Forest Act lay to the ordinary courts of appeal notwithstanding the statutory scheme for forest settlement proceedings.

Analysis: The statutory provisions for reservation of forest land and for settlement of claims created a special procedure before the Forest Settlement Officer and an appeal to the District Court on rejection of a claim. Once the matter reached the District Court, it was treated as an ordinary civil court exercising its usual jurisdiction, and the special statute did not expressly exclude the ordinary incidents of litigation or further appellate review.

Conclusion: The further appeals were competent, and the objection to their maintainability failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the claimants had established title by adverse possession against the Crown to islands formed in the sea within the territorial limits.

Analysis: Islands formed de novo in the sea within the territorial limits were held to belong in property to the Crown. In such a case, the burden lay on the person asserting a prescriptive title to prove adverse possession for the full statutory period. The findings below established that no adverse or exclusive possession was proved before 1882, and that finding defeated the claim. The Court also held that, in proceedings of this nature, the claimant stood in the position of a plaintiff seeking declaration of title and had to prove the facts constituting prescription.

Conclusion: The respondents had not proved adverse possession for the requisite period, so title remained with the Crown.

Final Conclusion: The decision of the High Court was set aside and the District Court's dismissal of the claims was restored, with costs awarded against the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi: Where land is shown to belong prima facie to the Crown, the burden of proving prescriptive title by adverse possession lies on the claimant, and islands newly formed within the territorial sea are Crown property unless that burden is discharged.

---