Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. Mr. Narayanaswami Aiyar, the appellants learned Counsel, set himself to the task of showing that the judgment is wrong from the judgment itself, as beyond the pleadings nothing has been printed. His contention, that the lower Courts view that the lands form part of an "estate", or that they answer the description of "old waste", is wrong, does not require serious notice, as we cannot discover from the judgment that the appellants had any sort of possession, whether under the Act or outside it - which would confer on them any legal right.

2. Then as to his next contention, the facts are briefly these : The defendants were sued under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, as representing a large number of villagers (about 150 in number) too numerous to be individually impleaded. In the plaint it is stated that in pursuance of a conspiracy, they combined in order to deny the plaintiffs title and to take unlawful possession of the land. All that we need say is, that it does not appear from the judgment that this allegation has been made out. But we think on the facts as found, the plaintiffs were entitled to have recourse to Order 1, Rule 8. The fact seems