1. These second appeals were presented against decrees of the District Court of Kistna reversing the decrees of the District Munsif of Gudivada and dismissing the suits which were instituted by the plaintiffs, some of the Agraharamdars of Paidi Mukkala in the Nuzvid Zamindary, for the ejectment of the defendants, some of the ryots in occupation of lands in the Agraharam. The plaintiffs case is that the defendants are mere temporary tenants having no permanent occupancy rights in the land and that they refused to quit their holdings on notice given to them terminating their tenancy. The defendants contention is that they are entitled to permanent occupancy rights and that the plaintiffs have no power to eject. They also allege that the Agraharam is an estate as defined in Section 3 of the Madras Estates Land Act and that a suit to eject them would not therefore lie in the Civil Court but was cognizable solely by a Revenue Court according to the provisions of the Act.

2. The District Munsif held that the Agraharam was not an estate as defined in the Act and that the ryots had no occupancy right in their holdings, and passed decrees in ejectment.

3. On appeal the District Judge,