JUDGMENT :- Defendants 1 to 5 are the appellants. Their only contention is that a Settlement Officer appointed under the Madras Estates Abolition Act (Act XXVI of 1948) having issued a patta in their favour the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into the question of title. The finding of the courts below that the plaintiff alone has title to this property is not questioned. The argument is purely a technical one based on Sec. 56 of the Madras Estates Abolition Act. The patta in favour of the defendants was granted on 21-2-1957 and Sec. 56 was repealed only thereafter. The argument of the appellants in short is that under Sec. 56 sub-sec. (1) clause (c) of Act XXVI of 1948, the Settlement Officer has to decide the dispute as to who the lawful ryot in respect of any holding is and that therefore the Settlement Officer in this case having decided that the defendants are the lawful ryots in respect of this particular holding, it is not open to a civil court to entertain any suit with regard to the question as to who is the lawful ryot in respect of any holding.

2. Under Act XXVI of 1948 as soon as an estate is notified all rights which any person might own in the estate come