Judgment :- The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for declaration of title and for an injunction or in the alternative for recovery of possession. The plaintiffs case is that the suit land measuring 1 acre 40 cents situate in Murayur village is part of S. No. 168/2 which is an extent of 11 acres 20 cents. The Sivaganga Zamindar was the landholder of the suit village. The kudiwaram interest in the suit land belonged to one Ramaswami Chettiar, Palaniappa Chettiar and two other Chettiars. Those Chettiars sold the suit property to one Chinniah Velar on 28th May, 1924 and put the purchaser in possession of the property. After the death of Chinniah Velar, his daughters were in possession of the suit property and they sold the same to the plaintiff under a sale dated 4th October, 1963. The suit property has been notified under Madras Act 26 of 1948 and taken over by the Government. In the survey conducted after abolition, the estate was classified as forming part of Nakkari Kanmoi which is in the east. The case of the plaintiff in that the suit property never formed part of Nakkarai Kanmoi. The plaintiff appears to have applied to the settlement department for issue of ryotiwari patta in respect of the suit land, but the application was returned on the ground that the final settlement enquiry was over. The second defendant has been cultivating the suit land as a tenant under the predecessors-in-title of the plaintiff. After the exchange of notices, the present suit was filed for the reliefs mentioned above. The first defendant filed a written statement contending that the settlement and survey of the suit village were completed in fasli 1368, that the suit property is always a part of Nakkaraikanmoi and that the plaintiff having failed to work out his rights the present suit is not maintainable. The second defendant filed a separate written statement contending that the plaintiff was not in possession of the property, that the suit property is an ancestral property of the second defendant, that the suit property was reclaimed and a well was dug therein by the second defendant; that the property is a ryoti land, and that he alone is entitled to get ryotwari patta in respect of the same. The trial court, while upholding that the suit property is a ryoti land belonging to the family of the plaintiffs vendors, held that the title to the property had been extinguished by the Abolition Act, that the suit is barred by provisions of Act 26 of 1948 and that the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. As regards the title to the property, the trial court did not go into the question whether the plaintiff or the second defendant had title to the suit property. The trial court left the question open in view of its finding that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In the result the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff, filed A.S. No. 152 of 1965 to the Subordinate Judge Sivaganga, and the learned Judge confirmed the decision of the trial court holding that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The second defendant filed Memorandum of cross objections relating to costs and the learned Judge allowed the memorandum of cross objections. The above second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. The suit out of which the second appeal has arisen is one for declaration of title and injunction, and not a suit for granting of patta. Therefore, the relief claimed in the suit cannot be granted by the tribunal created under the provisions of the Act. Both the courts below find that the land in question is a ryoti land. It is clear from the provisions of the Act that what really vests in the Government in respect of ryoti or private land is mere title and there is no vesting of possession which is protected under the proviso to Sec. 3(d) of the Act. So long as possession of the land continues to vest in the plaintiff, he would be entitled to protect his right in respect of the same by resorting to civil courts. The identical question came up for consideration recently before a Bench of this court consisting of Srinivasan and Sadasivam, JJ. in State of Madras v. Ramalingaswami Madam (1969) 2 M.L.J. 281 . Following that decision and on the concurrent finding of the courts below that the land in question is ryoti land, I hold that the plaintiff will be entitled to declaration and injunction as prayed for. in State of Madras v. Ramalingaswami Madam (1969) 2 M.L.J. 281 . Following that decision and on the concurrent finding of the courts below that the land in question is ryoti land, I hold that the plaintiff will be entitled to declaration and injunction as prayed for. The second appeal is allowed, the decrees and judgments of the courts below are set aside and the suit is decreed as prayed for. The appellant will be entitled to costs from the contesting respondent in the second appeal. No leave.