1. The only point in this second appeal is whether the defendants have occupancy right in the plaint property. The Dist. Munsif held that the suit land was an estate and, therefore, the defendants were entitled to occupancy rights. On appeal the Dist. Judge held on the evidence that the defendants made out occupancy rights. There is evidence to support the finding of the learned Judge that the defendants are occupancy tenants. Apart from that, there is the fact that the inam was made by the zemindar in 1838. If both warams were granted to the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title then the plaintiff would be a landholder within the meaning of the term as used in Section 3 (5), Estates Land Act. It is only if the plaintiff could, prove that kudivaram alone was granted to him that he could sustain his action against defendants. There is no such evidence and it is not seriously contended that kudivaram alone was granted in inam to the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff. The decision of the Full Bench in Brahmayya v. Achiraju A. 1922 Mad. 373 applies to this case The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.