Judgment :- Plaintiff is the appellant. Plaintiff filed A suit in O.S.No.108 of 1980 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirupathur for recovery of a sum of Rs.540 as rental arrears and Rs.180 as compensation and also for a direction to the defendant to remove the hut in the suit property and hand over the possession of the suit property. Plaintiff, relying upon a rental agreement dated 1.7.1967, said to have been entered into between the parties marked as Ex.A-1, has laid the suit for the relief stated above. 2. On the other hand, the defendant has disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the plaintiff and contended that it is the Government land in which he has been living for the past 20 years without paying any rent. The defendant has also disputed the genuineness of Ex.A-1, rental agreement. 3. The trial Court, after elaborately, discussing the entire facts relating to the validity of Ex.A-1, has come to the conclusion that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and that the defendant and his predecessors never paid any rent to the plaintiff. The trial Court has also observed that in any event, the defendant having lived in the premises for a sufficiently long period has perfected title-by adverse possession and on the basis of the same, the trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the lower appellate Court, having come to the conclusion that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff and, the defendant and also having explained elaborately about the inconsistencies in Ex.A-1, has confirmed the judgment of the trial Court dismissing the suit, as against which the plaintiff has filed the above appeal. 4. In the second appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed by this Court: "Whether the Courts below are, correct in dismissing the suit riled by the plaintiff, especially, when the plaintiff obtained patta Ex.A-12 from the Government, when the defendant also took part in the patta proceedings?" 5. Mr. G.Rangarathinam, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would submit, placing reliance on Ex.A-12, that by virtue of invoking the powers by the settlement Tahsildar under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act (30 of -1963), the land in question vests with the Government. Mr. G.Rangarathinam, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would submit, placing reliance on Ex.A-12, that by virtue of invoking the powers by the settlement Tahsildar under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act (30 of -1963), the land in question vests with the Government. According to him, after invoking the power under the said Act, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant would have any right over the same, since the property vests with the Government. He also places reliance on the judgment of this Court rendered in Chinnappa Gounder and others v. S.Seshadri Iyengar and another, AIR, 1981 Mad. 8. That was a case wherein during the, pendency of the suit for title filed by the plaintiff, the defendants were granted patta by the Tribunal in respect of the land under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) 1 Act (30 of 1963) and this Court held that the order of the Tribunal having become final, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on question of title again. In the resent case also', the learned counsel for the appellant would fairly state that, as seen in Ex.A-12, which is the order of the Court of the settlement Tahsildar, Chengalpattu, dated 23.8.1973, the settlement Court has clearly given direction for the grant under Sec.8(1) of Act 30 of 1963 in the suit land in favour of the present plaintiff. 6. The Courts below have considered Ex.A12, from which it is seen that the defendant also participated in the settlement proceedings. In any event as stated above, when once the any, power under Act 36 of 1963 is invoked, the property vests with the Government as fairly by considered the earn counsel for appellant and therefore, there is no question of any title in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, this Court is of the, opinion, that the judgments of the Courts below have to be 'confirmed. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that admittedly, the respondents are in possession and both the Courts have found that the respondents have acquired title by adverse possession. 8. As stated above, the plaintiff who has come forward based on the rental agreement has failed to prove that there was a landlord-tenant relationship and in these circumstances, the settlement proceeding's have been initiated. There is absolutely no merit in the suit. 8. As stated above, the plaintiff who has come forward based on the rental agreement has failed to prove that there was a landlord-tenant relationship and in these circumstances, the settlement proceeding's have been initiated. There is absolutely no merit in the suit. As far as the claim of the respondents about their possession" is concerned, it is not the subject­ matter, of the suit. It is always open to them to protect their possession in a manner known to law. Therefore, there is absolutely no question of law involved in the present appeal, more so, any substantial question of law and therefore, the second appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.