Wallace, J.

1. The original suit was for ejectment of the defendants and for a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the plaintiffs possession of the suit land. The suit land is in the ryotwari village of Machampattu. It was registered in the Government village registers as channel poramboke. In 1922 it was transferred by Government to assessed waste and assigned to the plaintiff on darkhast. The plaintiff alleges that he was put in possession at the time of the darkhast and that the defendants subsequently trespassed on it and dug a channel in it. The defence was that the darkhast of what was channel poramboke was fraudulent and invalid, and that the channel has been in use all along for taking water from the river Palar to irrigate the defendants lands. The trial Court held that the darkhast was valid and binding on the defendants and decreed the plaintiffs suit. The lower appellate Court in not a very clear judgment has decided that the "ryots" have acquired a right to preserve the channel as against the Government, and that the grant on darkhast in derogation of the defendants rights is invalid. It therefore dismissed the suit; and the plaintiff app