Sathish Ninan, J.

1. The order of the Forest Tribunal, dismissing the Original Application filed by the applicant, seeking a declaration that the application schedule property is liable to be exempted under Section 3 (3) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Vesting Act'), is under challenge in this appeal.

2. The application schedule property has an extent of 4.07 acres. The property originally belonged in Jenmom to one Sukhapuram Sabha Yogam. One Gangadhara Mannadiyar got 'Kanam' right over the property. He later assigned the property to the Thavazhi of the applicant's mother under Ext.A1 Assignment Deed. Under Ext.A2 Partition, the property was allotted to the applicant as included in ‘C’ schedule therein. According to the applicant, the land was subjected to fugitive cultivation and dry crops. Alleging obstruction on the part of the Forest Department on 28.06.2012, from enjoying the property, the Original Application was filed.

3. The Tribunal upheld the title of the applicant. However, it was found that he failed to prove that he does not possess land in excess of the ceiling area under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It was also found that the applicant has failed to prove that the land was under cultivation as on the relevant date.

4. We have heard Shri.A.R. Gangadas, the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant and Shri.Nagaraj Narayanan, the learned Special Government Pleader (Forests), on behalf of the respondents.

5. That the property is a private forest under the Vesting Act, is not disputed. The claim is that the property is liable to be exempted under Section 3 (3) of the Vesting Act. Section 3 (1) provides for vesting of private forest in the State on and from the appointed date, namely, 10.05.1971. Section 3 (2) and Section 3 (3) provide for exemption from vesting of certain categories of land. Section 3 (3), which is relevant for the present case, is extracted hereunder;

                   “S.3(3). Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply in respect of so much extent of private forests held by an owner under a valid registered document of title executed before the appointed day and intended for cultivation by him, which together with other lands held by him to which Chapter III of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, is applicable, does not exceed the extent of the ceiling area applicable to him under Section 82 of the said Act.”

                   Three essentials are required to be proved for the grant of exemption thereunder: (i) the property must be held under a valid registered title deed executed before the appointed day; (ii) the property must have been held with an intention to cultivate; and, (iii) the total extent of property held by him, including the subject property, shall not exceed the ceiling area under the Kerala Land Reforms Act.

6. The Tribunal found that condition No.(i) has been satisfied by the applicant; the other two conditions were held otherwise.

7. Before this Court, the appellant has, along with I.A.No.1 of 2025 filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, produced a certificate dated 22.11.2025 issued from the concerned Village Officer to the effect that he holds only 0.0203 hectors (5 cents). When the said extent is reckoned along with the OA schedule property, it would show that the total extent of the property held by him is only less than the ceiling area under the Land Reforms Act. The document being crucial for rendering a just judgment and for the ends of justice, we accept the document in evidence. Thus, we find that condition No.(iii) is also satisfied.

8. With regard to condition No.(ii), the applicant has to prove that, as on the appointed day, he was holding the property with an intention to cultivate. In Joseph and another v. State of Kerala and another [2007 (2) KHC 619], the Apex Court held;

                   “such intention on the part of the purchaser can be gathered from his conduct in regard to the development of land for making it fit for cultivation preceding to and subsequent to the date of vesting”.

9. Now we need to consider the materials on record to ascertain whether the intention of the applicant to cultivate the property could be gathered. Ext.C1 Commissioner's report does not give any such indication. On the contrary, the report seems to suggest that the property was not subjected to cultivation. So also is the evidence of PWs2 and 3, who were examined by the applicant to establish cultivation of his intention to cultivate. However, their deposition is to the effect that the property is filled with trees of forest species. There is no material to find that as on the appointed day the property was held with an intention to cultivate. The evidence on record does not even suggest the applicant had been cultivating the property. No material could be brought to our notice to enter a different finding. Therefore, the applicant has failed to establish condition No.(ii) to claim for exemption under Section 3 (3). We concur with the Tribunal in having held so.

                   We do not find any merits in the appeal. The appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.