1. We are of opinion that upon the facts found by him the Subordinate Judge was justified in dismissing the plaintiffs' suit.
2. The suit was brought to recover possession of certain lands in which the plaintiffs alleged they had acquired a right of occupancy. The lower appellate Court has found that, although the plaintiffs had title to the land, still they have not actually cultivated it for twelve years, and have not paid rent for it since 1280, that is, for about eleven years. Prom these facts the Subordinate Judge drew the inference that the land had actually been abandoned by the plaintiffs, and that the landlord was justified in letting it again to another tenant. We are not prepared to say that this decision is erroneous.
3. An objection has been taken that this suit was barred under the special provisions contained in Article 3, Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act, which provides a limitation of two years for a suit to recover possession of land by an occupancy ryot. We are of opinion that that article relates only to a suit brought by an occupancy ryot against his landlord, and not to a suit by a tenant against third parties who are trespassers.
4. The appeal is dismissed with costs.