on the land. Despite taking up such specific contentions the appellant herein had not chosen to take out a Commission to prove the averments and contentions. As noticed hereinbefore, going by the decision of this Court in Kunhiraman 's case(supra) as also in Joseph v. State of Kerala reported in 2007 (3) KLT 144 SC the burden was on the appellant herein to prove that the property in respect of which he claimed declaration, as mentioned above, was not a private forest or that it was not vested under the Vesting Act. As noticed hereinbefore, the appellant had not taken out a Commission to establish the verity of the aforesaid contentions and had also failed to adduce any other piece of cogent evidence to establish her case. When that be the circumstances, the Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any flaw by holding that the appellant had failed to prove that the MPPF Act was not applicable to the disputed property immediately before the appointed day i.e., 10.05.1971. Though she canvassed the position that despite the vesting the land had been used for cultivation and that is to establish her claim under Clause (C) of Section 2(f)(1)(i) of the Vesting Act, the aforesaid discussion would reveal that she had failed to establish the said claim by adducing evidence. In fact, all the aforesaid aspects were discussed in detail by the Tribunal. In
