Person filing suit for title has to establish his title.

Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants herein. The first respondent, who during the pendency of the appeal, filed the suit for partition and separate possession 19/24 shares. He claimed to have purchased under a sale deed dated 22.9.1975 the belonging to Mohammed Ismail, Mohammed Yusuff, Mohammed Ibrahim, Ibramsa and Wahab. Mohammed Yusuff is the son of Kasim Rowther, who, according to the plaintiff, half share in the property. The other half share was belonging to Yacoob Rowther, brother of Kasim Rowther., and on Yacoob’s death, the devolved on his wife and According to the plaintiff, except the defendants, the other heirs of Yacoob Rowther the sale deed dated 22.9.1975, which was executed by Kasim Rowther’s son Mohammed Yusuff.

2. The defendants, who are Yacoob Rowther’s wife, daughters and son, resisted mainly on the ground that the property belonged to the defendants exclusively as kudiyiruppu. According to the defendants, the other heirs of Yacoob Rowther and the Kasim Rowther, did not have any right in the Kudiyiruppu as they were not in possession. is not necessary to set out elaborately the defence raised by the defendants in the statements.

3. The plaintiff for the purpose of proving his title relied on a sale deed in his executed on 22.9.1975 and the proceedings in an earlier suit O.S.No.293 of 1965 on of District Munsif, Sirkali, instituted by one Govindarajulu Naidu against Yacoob Rowther others. As regards the sale deed dated 22.9.1975 that was executed just three months to the filing of the present suit and it will not in any way help the plaintiff to claim against the defendants unless he proves the title of his vendors. The earlier proceedings generated in the suit by Govindarajulu Naidu against Yacoob Rowther and others recovery of possession in O.S.No.293 of 1965 on the file of the District Munsif, Sirkali. defendants therein, and in particular Yacoob Rowther, who was the third defendant, that they were entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Protection from Eviction) Act XXXVIII of 1961 and the suit for possession was sustainable.

4. The trial Court upheld the said plea and dismissed the suit. The finding on the issue was that defendants 1 to 3 in that suit were agriculturists or agricultural labourers their principal means of livelihood was agriculture and they were entitled to the benefits Tamil Nadu Act XXXVIII of 1961. There was an appeal in the Sub Court, Mayuram, ended in dismissal. The plaintiff preferred S.A.No.1539 of 1971 in this Court, which dismissed on 19.3.1974. The judgments in the prior proceedings are marked as Exts.A 4 and A-3 respectively.

5. Thus, it is clear that the persons under whom the plaintiff claimed title were entitled to the benefits of Act XXXVIII of 1961 and they were not the absolute owners property. The plaintiff cannot, therefore, claim that his vendors had independent title absolute ownership of the property.

6. Act XXXVIII of 1961 conferred protection on Kudiyiruppudars from eviction of Kudiyirup-pus. That Act did not deal with ownership of Kudiyiruppu. In fact, the contained provisions enabling the owner of the land to seek eviction of the occupants Kudiyiruppu by initiating proceedings by applying to the Authorised Officer. If the Act continued to be in force, the vendors of the plaintiff would not have had any title to the to be conveyed to the plaintiff in the suit.

7. The vendors of the plaintiff conveyed ownership to the plaintiff only on the footing they were the owners of the land. That could be only on the basis of vesting of the Kudiyiruppu in them under Sec.3 of the Tamil Nadu Occupants Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) Act (XL of 1971). There was no other basis on which the vendors of the plaintiff could have conveyed title to the plaintiff under Ex.A-1.

8. Though the contention of the defendants is that the vendors of the plaintiff had no right to the Kudiyiruppu as such and the defendants are the only persons in wh