1. It is found that the village in which the suit lauds lie is not a part of an estate under the meaning of Section 3(2) of the Madras Estates Land Act: so that enactment will not apply.

2. Dealing with the case under the ordinary-law no reason has been shown for differing from the view of the District Judge that plaintiff was entitled to evict defendants. It is found that plaintiff has been in possesion of the suit lands since 1866 and has let defendants into possession as his tenants. The fact that the land was classed as village site, though not used for building purposes, will not affect plaintiffs right to evict in such circumstances.

3. The second appeals are dismissed with costs.