Back
1949 Supreme(SC) 29
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD PORTER, LORD MACDERMOTT, SIR MADHAVAN NAIR AND SIR JOHN BEAUMONT,
KUMBHAM LAKSHMANNA - Appellant
Versus
TANGIRALA VENKATESWARLU - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court at Madras.
Decided On : June 14, 1949.
Solicitors for appellants:Douglas Grant & Co. Solicitors for first respondent: Lambert & White.
In ejectment suits by inamdars, the initial burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish the right to evict. The requirement for tenants to prove occupancy rights applies only to those let into possession by an absolute owner, not to those in immemorial possession.
Headnote:(A) Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 - Sections 3(2)(d) and 6 - Indian Evidence Act - Sections 101 and 102 - Ejectment suit by a holder of a minor inam - Burden of proof - In a suit by a holder of a minor inam to eject tenants, the initial burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish a right to evict by proving that the grant included both the melvaram and kudivaram interests, or that the tenants were let into possession under a terminable lease. (Paras 121-125)
(B) Interpretation of "tenant" regarding occupancy rights - The principle that the onus of proving a right of permanent tenancy lies on the tenant applies only to those who were let into possession by a landlord who is the absolute owner of the land. This does not apply to cultivating ryots whose origin of rights is unknown or who have been in possession immemorially. (Paras 123-125)
(C) Evidential value of lease deeds - Admissions in lease deeds executed by illiterate tenants are to be viewed with caution, especially when such documents were obtained to prevent the acquisition of occupancy rights and the tenants were already in possession of the land. Such stipulations are insufficient to rebut a presumption of occupancy rights arising from long possession. (Paras 127-128)
Facts of the case:
A holder of a minor inam sought to eject cultivating ryots from land, claiming that the original grant included both melvaram and kudivaram interests. The ryots contended they had been in possession from time immemorial and held occupancy rights. The plaintiff relied on registered lease deeds containing admissions of the landlord's proprietary rights. The original grant had been made to a non-resident grantee.
Findings of Court:
The plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving the right to evict. The lease deeds were insufficient to rebut the presumption of occupancy rights given the tenants' long possession and the non-resident status of the original grantee, which suggested the grant was for revenue only.
Issues: Whether the burden of proof to establish the right to evict lies with the plaintiff (inamdar) or the defendants (tenants) to prove occupancy rights, and whether that burden was discharged in the present case.
Ratio Decidendi: In an ejectment suit, the plaintiff must first prove the right to immediate possession. The burden shifts to the tenant to prove occupancy rights only if the tenant was let into possession by a landlord who is the absolute owner. For ryots in immemorial possession, the plaintiff must prove the grant included both melvaram and kudivaram interests to establish a right to evict.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
-
land tenure
- inam grants
- occupancy rights
- ejectment
-
land tenure
-
practice and procedure
-
evidence
- burden of proof
- weight of evidence
-
evidence
Judgement
Appeal (No. 41 of 1946) from a judgment and decree of the High Court
Law Rep. 76 Ind. App. 202 ( 1948- 1949) Kumbham Lakshmanna V. Tangirala Venkateswarlu
112
(September 28, 1943) which reversed a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam (September 6, 1941) and allowed the plaintiffs (respondents) suit with costs.
The main question in this appeal was whether in a suit by a holder of a minor inam to eject the tenants from the holding, the burden was on the plaintiff to make out a right to evict by proving that the grant included both the melvaram and the kudivaram interests, or that the tenants or their predecessors were let into possession by the inamdar under a terminable lease, or whether the burden was on the tenants to prove that they had occupancy rights.
The trial court held that the burden lay on the plaintiff to make out a right to evict the tenants, while the High Court held that the burden of proof lay on the tenants to prove that they had occupancy rights.
The facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
1949. Feb. 23, Mar. 1, 2, 8, 10. Jayakar and L. E. H. Fellows for the appellants (the tenants). The original grant is lost, and this is a case in which there is an inam grant of which the terms are unknown or uncertain, and in which the tenants have been in occupation immemorially, or for a very long time, paying melvaram or rent to the inamdar, but the origin and terms of the tenancy are not known. [Reference was made to Seethayya v. Somayajulu (( 1929) L. R. 56 I. A. 146.).] The evidence establishes that the appellants have been in possession of the suit lands from time immemorial, and in the absence of any binding leases or other documents to show how they went into possession there is a presumption that they have occupancy rights. It is for the respondent to prove that the various kaths, or leases, which were executed by the tenants, who were illiterate, were explained to them, and in the absence of such proof they are not binding on them Kwamin Bassayin v. Bendentu II (( 1937) A. I.
R. (P. C.) 274.). One inference from the documents is that there must have been partition of the suit lands by the tenants which was not objected to by the respondents predecessor. In an action to eject a tenant the burden is on the plaintiff to show that he has a right to evict by proving that the grant consisted of both the varams Appa Rau v. Subbanna (( 1889) I. L. R. 13 M. 60, 64.); Venkatacharlu v. Kandappa (( 1891) I. L. R. 15 M. 95). The real point is whether Nainapillai Marakayar v. Ramanathan Chettiar (( 1923) L. R. 51 I. A. 83, 89.), in which it was said that "it cannot now be doubted that " when a tenant of lands in India in a suit by his landlord to " eject him from them, sets up a defence that he has a right "of permanent tenancy in the lands, the onus of proving " that he has such right is upon the tenant," has overruled Chidambara Sivaprakasa Pandara Sannadhigal v. Veerama Reddi (( 1922) L. R. 49 I. A. 286.), which held that each case must be dealt with on its facts, which meant that the burden lay on the plaintiff to prove his case. It is submitted that " tenant " as referred to in Nainapillais case (3) was used in a restrictive sense of a tenant holding under a landlord who held both varams. There is no mention of Chidambaras case (( 1922) L. R. 49 I.
A. 286.) in the judgment in Nainapillai*s case (3). If the view in Zamindar of Parlakimedi v. Ramayya (( 1926) 51 Mad. L. J. 510.) is correct, as I submit it is, then Nainapillai’s case (3) cannot be accepted, and if that is so, the judgment of King J. in the present case, which is entirely based on Nainapillais case (3) cannot stand. [Reference was also made to Suryanarayana v. Patanna (( 1918)
L. K. 45 I. A. 209.) ; Upadrashta Venkata Sastrulu v. Divi Seetharamudu (( 1919) L. R. 46 I.A. 123.) ; Seturatnam Aiyar v. Venkatachala Gounden (( 1919) L. R. 47 I. A. 76.) ; Subramanya Chettiar v. Subramanya Mudaliyar (( 1929) L.
