1. This suit was brought under Section 56 of the Madras Estates Land Act by a landholder to enforce the acceptance of a patta by the defendant, who is according to him, a ryot in one of the villages comprised in his estate. The period of limitation for such a suit is three months, after the expiration of one month from the defendant's failure to accept a patta. No question of limitation 'was raised in the Courts below, and as the District Judge says, no question can possibly arise in the circumstances. As this is not a suit for declaring the plaintiff's right to resume or assess rent-free land, it is unnecessary to apply Article 130 of the Limitation Act, nor has that article been suggested in the grounds of appeal or in the arguments. The defendant is admittedly in possession of cultivable lands other than private lands in the plaintiff's estate. He alleged at the trial that they had been granted to his grandfather by the plaintiff's predecessor, free of rent, 100 years ago. The Court of Wards, who are in charge of this estate, directed the resumption of the inam under Exhibit A on the 24th January 1920. The defendant, having raised the defence that the land had been granted to his ancestor to be enjoyed free of service and free of any assessment for ever, failed to prove it. It was found by both the lower Courts that the land was granted originally to one Karim Shah as Masjid or Fakir inam, and the Ajmash account and Exhibit III support this conclusion. From these both the Courts drew the conclusion that the grant was one of a service inam and it is not suggested that any service is now being rendered.
2. Under Section 3, Clause 16 of the Estates Land Act 'rlyoti land does not include lands granted on service tenures either free of rent or on favourable rates of rent if granted before the passing of this Act. But when services are discontinued the lands become ryoti lands. In Raja Venkata Ramayya v. Veeraswamy  41 Mad. 554 we held that no particular formality or procedure was required in case services are discontinued for putting an end to service tenures in order to make the lands ryoti lands in cases where lands which were once ryoti lands have been given to the occupancy ryot on a favourable rent in consideration of services to be rendered.
3. The burden lay on the defendant in,, this case to prove that the lands held by him were exempted from the class of ryoti lands and that he was entitled to hold them free of rent. For this purpose he relied upon Exhibits 1 to III, the effect of which, if genuine is to show that in 1808, 1815 and 1829 orders were issued that the Karim Shah inam was to be continued to Ghulam Ali who is said to be the defendant's grandfather and confirmed (jari) in his name. But there is nothing in these documents to imply that the grant was exempt from future services or that it was to be held permanently exempt from payment of rent. Assuming that Exhibit I is admissible, being unsigned, the District Judge has found for reasons stated that there is no counexion shown between the document and the suit land. The defendant also relies on his long enjoyment for about 100 years, during which time he says he has paid no rent. There is no evidence as to the date when the services ceased to be rendered.
4. Keval Kuber v. The Talukdari Settlement Officer  1 Bom. 586 and Lakhamgavda v. Keshav Annaji  28 Bom. 305 are cases in which the grantees of an inam succeeded on the strength of their long enjoyment in resisting the claims of the landholder to impose rent. In 1 Bom. 586 (2) nothing was known as to the nature of the grant and the terms being unknown the Judges were unable to accept the argument that the grantor or his representative were entitled to take back the lands or dispense with the performance of the services.
5. In 28 Bom. 305 (3) the landholder in a similar case claimed to dispense with the defendant's services of his own free will, whether the defendant was willing to continue to render them or not and those learned Judges held that he was not entitled to do so, as the landlord had not proved his right to resume and as the defendants had proved long and undisturbed possession for a number of years and they were unwilling to discontinue the service.
6. The present case is quite different. Here all the evidence that we have points to the grant having been one for a service inam and admittedly the service is not being rendered and has not been rendered for a long time. The defendant, having failed to prove that he was entitled to enjoy the land rent free, the lower Courts were justified in directing him to accept a patta at the rate fixed in the accounts.
7. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.