1. We must take it that in 1878, when the landlord brought the tenant's interest in the land to sale for arrears of rent and purchased it himself, it was ryoti land. Section 8 of the Madras Estates Lind Act, enacts that the occupancy and landlord's rights did not merge by the purchase and that the landlord did not acquire occupancy right. The land remained ryoti, and defendant 2 being in possession as a ryot when the Act came into operation, must be taken to have acquired occupancy right by virtue of S. 6, if he did not possess it before.
2. The suit must therefore fail and is dismissed.
3. Defendant 1 will bear defendant 2's costs throughout, and defendant 1 and plaintiff will bear their own.
S.N/R.K
4. Appeal allowed.