1. The first point urged is that as defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were in possession of the land in question on the date when the Estates Land Act, I of 1908, came into force, they acquired the right of occupancy in the land under Section 6 of the Act, and that the plaintiff is, therefore, not entitled to recover possession from them. It has been found by the lower Appellate Court that the plaintiff was in possession of the land for more than the statutory period before he was dispossessed in 1906. He had, therefore, acquired by prescription either the absolute right to the property or the right of a ryot. We are clearly of opinion that the object of Section 6 of Act 1 of 1908 was only to confer on ryots in possession as against the landholder the occupancy-right in the land and that it was not intended to destroy the occupancy-right which vested, in our opinion, prior to July 1908, in favour of another person wrongfully in possession of the holding in July 1905. This argument cannot, therefore, be upheld. It is next argued that the Subordinate Judge is wrong in holding that the plaintiff acquired an absolute title to the land by his possession and that under Section 45 of Act I of 1908, the 3rd defendant would be entitled to recover rent from the plaintiffs. It is un-necessary to decide in this case what interest in the land the plaintiff acquired by prescription and whether under Section 45 of the Act he would be bound to pay to 3rd defendant the rent fixed for the land. The plaintiff is clearly entitled to recover possession in any event. It is argued that the suit is barred under Section 13 of Act IV of 1897, but there was no order passed under the Act. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.