The judgment established the interpretation of possession and occupancy rights under the Estates Land Act, particularly in relation to the purchase of kudivaram right and the effect on the land's status as ryoti land.

1. The defendants are the appellants. They were the tenants of the plaintiff who is the Zamindar of the Egathoor Zamin. The plaintiff purchased not only the Zamindari from the former Zamindar but he also purchased the kudivaram right in the plaint ryoti lands which the former Zamindar had purchased in rent auction sale of 1900. The plaintiff brought the suit out of which this second appeal has arisen as the purchaser of the kudivaram right from the rent auction purchaser for ejecting the defendants.

2. This suit was brought in the District Munsifs Court of Tiruvellore about the end of 1906 before the Estates Land Act came into force. The suit was first dismissed by the District Munsif and by the District Judge on appeal. The High Court on second appeal held that the decision of the lower Courts against the plaintiff on the fifth issue was wrong and set aside the decree of the lower Courts and remanded the suit for disposal on its merits. The judgment of the High Court is dated 22nd August 1911 after the Estates Land Act came into force. When the case went back to the District Munsif, the defendants raised a fresh contention, namely that the Madras Act I of 1908 has conferred on them occupancy rights in the land and that the suit ought to be dismissed on that ground. Thereupon two new issues were raised by the District Munsif and they are as follows :

6th issue :-"Whether the defendants are entitled to occupancy rights under Madras Act I of 1908." 7th issue :--"whether this plea can be raised now.

3. The learned District Munsif decided the issues in the defendants favour and dismissed the plaintiffs suit without costs. On appeal, the learned District Judge held on the 6th issue that S. 6 of the Estates Land Act protects only those ryots who were in possession on the date of the passing of the Act by reason of their holding over (after the expiry of the period of lease, having never had occupancy right before), that a ryot whose holding had been sold away in rent auction before the Act came into force but who continued in possession is not " a ryot in possession" within the meaning of Section 6, Clause 1, but is only a trespasser in occupation of ryoti land, and that the word " possession" means " lawful possession" and not merely holding over whilst proceedings for ejectment are in progress. Upon this view, the learned District Judge decreed the plaintiffs suit with costs.

4. In Kanakayya v. Janardana Padhi and 2 Ors. (1910) I.L.R. 36 M. 439. 21 M.L.J, 31 F.B. the Full Bench decided that even after a decree in ejectment had been passed against the ryot in favour of the landlord, if the decree had not become final owing to an appeal having been preferred against it and if the said appeal is pending on the date when the Madras Estates Land Act came into force, the ryot is entitled to rely on Section 6 and the suit must be decided, in his favour against the landlord. In the order of reference to the Full Bench in that case the learned Judges of the Division Bench made the following remarks:--

The contention that the possession of the defendant ceases in law by a decree for possession against him is a confounding of possession with title and is not worthy of serious notice.

5. The explanation to Section 6 added by Section 3 of Act IV of 1909 is as follows:--" For the purpose of this sub-section, the expression every ryot now in possession, shall include every person who, having held land is a ryot, continues in possession of such land at the commencement of this Act" It seems to me that the defendants in this case were ryots in possession of ryoti land not being old waste, continued in possession of such land at the commencement of the Act and that therefore according to the plain wording of Section 6, Clause 1 they obtained a permanent right of occupancy in the holding of which they so continued in possession. Under Section 8, Clause 1 the landholder who has purchased the kudivaram right in a rent auction sale has no right to h