JUDGMENT

GUPTA, J. :—This appeal by special leave arises out of a proceeding started suo motu by the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor, under Section 15 (1) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. Section 15 (1) reads : 1067

"Determination of lands in which the land-holder is entitled to Ryotwari Patta under foregoing provisions :- (1) The Settlement Officer shall examine the nature and history of all lands in respect of which the land-holder claims a ryotwari patta under Secs. 12, 13 or 14, as the case may be, and decide in respect of which lands the claim should be allowed."

The first respondent who purchased the land in question on May 12, 1950 claimed a ryotwari patta in respect of the same under Section 13 (b) (iii) which is in these terms :

"13. Lands in inam estate in which land-holder is entitled to ryotwari patta :- In the case of an inam estate, the land-holder shall, with effect on and from the notified date, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of -

(a) x x x

(b) (i) x x

(ii) x x

(iii) all lands (not being (i) lanka lands, (ii) lands of the description specified in Section 3, Clause (16), sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the Estates Land Act, or (iii) forest lands) which have been abandoned or relinquished by a ryot, or which have never been in the occupation of a ryot, provided that the land-holder has cultivated such lands himself, by his own servants or hired labour, with his own or hired stock, in the ordinary course of husbandry, from the 1st day of July 1945 and has been in direct and continuous possession of such lands from that date.

Explanation :- cultivate in this clause includes the planting and rearing of topes, gardens and orchards, but does not include the rearing of topes of spontaneous growth."

It is clear that the land-holder in order to be entitled to a ryotwari patta under Section 13 (b) (iii) must prove that he has cultivated the land himself or by his own servants or hired labour from July 1, 1945 and has been in direct and continuous possession of the land from that date. It appears that before the suo motu enquiry under Section 15 (1) had commenced, a ryotwari patta in respect of the same land had been granted jointly in the names of the first respondent and the two appellants before us. This patta was however cancelled as it had been issued without enquiry and the present enquiry under Section 15 (1) was started. The appellants preferred objections to the claim put forward by the first respondent stating that they were in possession of the land and had been cultivating it for the last 30 years. To refute the appellants claim of possession, the first respondent filed a certified copy of the judgment in Original Suit No. 245 of 1959 of the District Munsif s Court, Madanapalle, which was instituted by the first respondent for declaration of his title to the land in dispute and for permanent injunction restraining the appellants, who were impleaded as defendants, from interfering with his peaceful possession. This suit was decreed and the defendants were restrained from interfering with the first respondent s possession of the land. The first respondent also filed the certified copy of the decree (Ex. P-3) passed by the Subordinate Judge, Chittoor, affirming in appeal the decision of the District Munsif. The Assistant Settlement Officer disregarded Exhibits P-2 and P-3 on the view that the appellants were not parties to the suit. This was plainly wrong as it appears from those exhibits that the appellants were the defendants in the suit. however, the Assistant Settlement Officer also found that the first respondent had failed to prove personal and continuous cultivation from July 1, 1945, his own case being that he had reclaimed the land after his purchase on may 12, 1950. The Assistant Settlement Officer therefore rejected the first respondent s claim and held that the land would be treated as "assessed waste."

2. From the order of the Assistant