The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the conversion of land into ryoti land for the application of Section 6 of the Madras Estates Land Act.

Wallace, J.

1. The original suit in this case was for ejectment of the defendants from the suit lands. These are situated in Paydimukkala Agraharam, an entire inam which is geographically within the zamindari of Vuyyur. Part of the agraharam including the plaint lands, 4 acres, was bought in by the zamindar about 1873 and had apparently been treated from that date as home farm land. The plaint land was in fasli 1306 in possession of defendant 1 who leased it under Ex. C. In fasli 1313 he relinquished the four acres and this was granted as a service inam to one Venka-boyudu who leased it to defendant 1 for four years under Ex. M. In fasli 1316 the zamin came under the Court of Wards. It resumed the inam and issued, kambattam patta to defendant 1 for fasli 1316. In the next fasli a seri patta, Ex. VI, was issued to him, but he-refused it. He, however, remained in possession. In fasli 1S21 a patta, the nature of which is in dispute, was issued to Ranganayaki, the daughter of Venkaboyudu. But she did not obtain possession from defendant 1. Plaintiff purchased from this lady and now sues on the strength of the patta issued to her for ejectment of defendant 1 and others.

2. The defence was that the zamindar had explicitly or implicitly conferred occupancy rights on the defendants long; before the patta was issued to Ranganayaki and that therefore that patta was useless and unenforceable. The first Court held that no pattah conferring; occupancy rights had been obtained by the defendants, that there was no proof of any re-grant to the defendants after the resumption by the Court of Wards, that defendants 1, possession must be deemed all along to have been the possession of Venkaboyudu and Ranganayaki as he came into possession originally as a tenant of Venkaboyudu, and that Ranga-nayakis patta right must prevail. The District Munsif, therefore, gave a decree-to the plaintiff. The lower appellate Court agreed that the defendants had not. proved any occupancy right but held that the patta issued to Ranganayaki also did not confer any occupancy right on her and, therefore, the plaintiff had no title to eject and it dismissed the plaintiffs suit.

3. In second appeal to this Court the cases was first heard by Spencer, J., who, holding that the lower appellate Court had made several mistakes of fact and had not rightly considered the documents, remanded the appeal for a finding whether having regard to Section 6, Madras Estates Land Act, Ranganayaki had been admitted to the possession of ryoti land in the Vuyyur estate at any time after 1st July 1908 and whether plaintiff obtained a valid transfer of such right from Ranganayaki. The lower appellate Court has submitted a finding in the affirmative on both points and I have heard the second appeal after submission of this finding.

4. The findings are, so far as they go, in favour of the appellant. The respondent attacks them on the ground that they also are based on mistakes of fact and on the ground that the remand order itself was based on an erroneous idea that Section 6, Madras Estates Land Act, will apply, whereas it cannot be applied since, the plaint land is not land in an estate within the meaning of the Act. On the latter point the appellant rejoins that I am bound by the order and the findings of Spencer, J., and cannot disregard them. I am prepared to concede as a general principle that a Judge of this Court coming fresh to the hearing of an appeal which has been partly heard by another Judge is bound by any finding that the other Judge may have come to in the course of the hearing of the appeal. But in the present case it appears to me that Spencer, J., did not come to any definite finding that Section 6, Estates Land Act, does apply. The learned Judge in his order holds that there are indications that the zamindar treated the land at first as private or home farm land and then went on to say But Section 6, Madras Estates Land Act, created an occupancy right in favour of ever