The settlement between the Government and Plaintiff resolved the dispute over the localization of the inam, and the amendment of the plaint to include the Government as a party was permissible.

Ramesam, J.

1. The facts of this Second Appeal may be briefly stated. One Varanasi Ramayya owned an Inam, measuring 2 acres 30 cents, in the suit village of Ramasingavaram. He sold half of it to P.W. 3, under Ex. A (14th December 1895). P.W. 3 sold half of his moiety (i.e., one-fourth) under Ex. C-1 to K. Lingamaraju, who then sold it to plaintiff, under Ex. B. P.W. 3 sold the other half of his main by also to plaintiff under Ex. C (21st April 1914). Thus whatever inam Ramayya had sold passed to the plaintiff. The suit is for recovery of that Inam.

2. There is some doubt and confusion, as to the identity of the inam. As will appear later on, the point is in my opinion, not material. But I may indicate the nature of the doubt, according to the Munsifs findings. The Subordinate Judge has given no finding. According to the District Mursif, it appears that the Survey number of the Inam, according to the old Survey, was No. 114. In the resettlement of the village in 1899 or 1900, S. No. 114 is shown as 236-A. The rest of the Survey No. 236 belongs to Government. The Munsif also says : "At the time of the Sub-Division, Survey field No. 236-A appears to have been shown as Survey field No. 236/A/544."

3. Some of the Survey records show interpolations and corrections and show that Survey No. 236/A/544 is South of S. No. 104; but it is possible that the corrections represent the proper state of things, though it is not clear. The plaintiffs suit is for recovery of the land south of S. No. 104.

4. The defendants plead this the land, south of S. No. 104, is, not 236/A/544, but 236 G and it belongs to Government. They plead no title of their own, not even a right to possession, under the authority of the true owner. In the written statement, they no doubt pleaded that Buddala people cultivated it and sold it to 10th defendant, but no sale-deed is produced. In fact, it was admitted before ma that such part of the suit land, as was under the occupation of the defendants, was under their Sivajima cultivation, i.e., they are practically trespassers and have no right of any kind. When a person, who has no patta and is therefore not a ryot, trespasses on a land belonging to Government and cultivates it, the Government sometimes imposes an assessment (somewhat heavier than the usual settlement assessment). This is called Sivajima assessment. It amounts to a condoning of the act of trespass, but does not amount to a recognition of any right, nor any undertaking on the part of the Government to parmit the occupation for the future, though as a matter of fact, the occupation may go on for years, and the trespass for that year be condoned for that year by the recovery of the assessment. (S.O. 15 paragraphs 23, 24 and 25). It is clear that defendants rights, even as such trespassers, terminated with 1918 (See Ex. G).

5. Thus, the defendants have no substantial defence on the merist. When the original written statement was filed, at the most, it amounted to a plea of jus tertii, i.e., the right of Government. In 1920, the plaint was amended by making the Government a party and paragraph 7(1) was added. The defendants agreed to the amendment and did not oppose it. The result of the amendment was that the Government, whose title was pleaded by the defendant as jus tertii became a party to the suit and the Government does not support the other defendants and there is no jus tertii to be pleaded. A plea of jus tertii is no defence, unless the defendant can show that the act complained of was done by the authority of the true owner : Narayana Row v. Dharmachar [1903] 26 Mad. 514 citing Graham v. Peat 1 East 244 and Chambers v. Donaldson 11 East 65. The situation is that plaintiff and Government are the two rival owners of the suit land and parties to the suit, and it is a matter to be settled between them and no jus tertii is available for the other defendants. At this stage, the Government recognised that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land and