The main legal point established in the judgment is that adverse possession must be brought to the notice of the true owner to become a basis of title, and open and unequivocal notice of intention to prescribe for a higher right in the land to the landholder is essential.

Stodart, J.

1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for rent under Section 77 of the Estates Land Act by the Zamindar of Bodo Khenidi. The suit proceeded on the footing that the land for which rent was claimed was S. No. 532 of Godogovindpur a village in the plaintiffs zamindari. The defendants are (1) a goldsmith of Godogovindpur, (2) a Brahmin describing himself as an inamdar of the neighbouring village on the west called Pattigovindpur which is outside plaintiffs zamindari, and (3) a Komati of Naupada, a village in the plaintiffs zamindari. The first defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by the second and third defendants claiming that the field was an enfranchised pre-settlement inam land, that the first and third defendants had bought separate portions from the inamdars, and that the land formed part of Pattigovindpur village. It was also claimed that the defendants had held the land for long over the statutory period without paying rent to the zamindar.

[After an elaborate discussion of the facts on evidence His Lordship proceeded.]

2. On appeal three points are urged on behalf of the respondents. First, that the suit land although situated inside the limits of Godogovindpur is nevertheless part of the whole inam village of Pattigovindpur. This as we have said was never pleaded, much less proved. We have already said more than once that the defendants claimed the suit land as lying within the village of Pattigovindpur. Then it is urged that the learned District Judge was right in his finding that the defendants had held the land adversely to the plaintiff for more than twelve years. We have already stated that there is no evidence at all of this. Lastly, it is urged that having been in possession for more than twelve years without paying rent, the defendants cannot now be called on to pay rent. And this is the only point of law which arises for decision in this appeal. We are not prepared to hold on the evidence that the defendants or their predecessors were in possession for over twelve years without paying rent, but assuming that they were, we think that they did not prevent the zamindar from levying rent when he came to know of the occupation of the land. Jeroyati or ryoti land is land in a zamindari in which the tenant has occupancy rights as defined in the Estates Land Act (I of 1908). A ryot who has been let into possession by the landholder or whose possession is recognised by the landholder is called an occupancy ryot and has large rights, the chief of which is that he cannot be evicted except on the ground that he has rendered his holding substantially unfit for agricultural purposes (see Section 151). A ryot who has not been let into possession by the landholder or who has not acquired the occupancy right by inheritance or transfer is a non-occupancy ryot. And he too has valuable rights and privileges under the Act. He may make improvements on the land without the landholders consent (Section 14). He is not liable to pay rent for the land in excess of the rent fixed on the land or if no rent is fixed then a fair and equitable rent decided by the Collector (Section 45). And finally he can compel the landholder to grant him a permanent right of occupancy on tendering as premium a sum equal to two and a half times the rent of the land and the landholder is debarred for twenty years thereafter from enhancing that rent (Section 46). It is only when the provisions of Sections 45 and 46 have not been complied with that the landholder has the right to evict a non-occupancy ryot by a suit in a Civil Court (Section 163). On the other hand the non-occupancy ryot must of course pay rent (Section 45) and the rent can be recovered from him by suit in the Collectors Court (Section 77) and he can be evicted if he fails to discharge a decree for rent within a certain time, by suit filed in the Collectors Court (Section 153). But there is nothing in the Act which enables the non-occupancy ryot to prescri