(Prayer: Appeal (disposed of on 10-1-1949) against the decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge Madura in A.S. No. 112 of 1945 preferred against the decree of the Court of the District Munsif, Madura, in O.S. No. 16 of 1945.)

The defendant is the appellant. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by the landholder to recover possession of some Gramanatham land which was occupied by the defendant sometime in 1936. The main defense to the suit was that the plaintiff who was one of the co-owners of the inam village in which the land was situated was not entitled to institute the suit in ejectment; secondly, that the plaintiff was not the owner of the land and that it is communal property and he had, therefore, no title to eject; thirdly that the plaintiff had no possession within 12 years prior to the date of institution of the suit. On all the questions both the Courts found in favour of the plaintiff, negative the contentions of the defendant, and decreed the suit.

In this second appeal, again the same contentions were repeated. On the first question apart from the fact that the plaintiff was recognized as the landholder under the Estates Land Act, he is entitled to institute the present suit in ejectment against the defendant who was a trespasser on the finding of the Courts below as laid down by the decision of this Court in Syed Ahmad Sahib Shutare v. The Magnesite Syndicate Ltd., (39 Mad. 501 [LQ/MadHC/1915/142] = 2 L.W. 460). The contention, therefore, that the plaintiff was not entitled to institute the suit, he being only a co-owner, is untenable.

The second contention is that the plaintiff is not the owner or at any rate is not entitled to maintain this suit in respect of Gramanatham lands. In view of the decision of Wadsworth J. in Chinnathambi Gounder v. Venkatasubramania Iyer (49 L.W. 326) this contention also seems to me untenable. Gramanatham is not communal property in the sense in which thrashing floor or burning grounds or other property is communal, that is properly reserved for the use of the community. Gramanatham if it is unoccupied is assigned from time to time by the proprietor whether it is in zamindari area or in an inam village; and this practice was referred to by the learned Judge (Wadsworth J.) in Chinnathambi Goundan v. Venkatasubramania Iyer (49 L.W. 326). This, if I may say so with respect, is the practice obtained in the zamindari area and also in inam villages.

The village in which the suit site is situated is an imam village and the owners of the village (invaders) would be entitled to all the porombokes except communal porombokes; and this not being a communal poromboke, the plaintiff would be entitled to institute the suit for recovery of possession.

As regards the third contention that the plaintiff did not establish possession within 12 years prior to the suit, the finding of both the Courts is that Karuppan Ambalam was in possession of the property from the year 1923 upto 1933 and thereafter he walked out of the building or house. The house became dilapidated and the defendant trespassed into that property in 1936. Thereafter she rebuilt the house and continued to live. The present suit was instituted within 12 years from the date of the trespass by the defendant in 1936 and, therefore, the suit is in time. It is in evidence of the defendants witnesses themselves that the plaintiff was planting mango tress on the site and was watering them. That could not have happened after the defendant got into the house after 1936 but must be between 1933 and 1936 and the Courts below have given sufficient reasons for holding that the defendants possession commenced only in 1936. The plaintiff was in possession at any rate after Karuppan Ambalam walked out of the land in 193

3. The decision of the Court below is correct. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. No leave.