Judgement

Appeal (No. 10 of 1927) from a decree of the High Court (October 15, 1924) varying a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly.

The first respondent was the owner by purchase of the pattadar rights in an undivided moiety of certain lands in a village in the Madras Presidency. He brought the present suit claiming a partition. The appellants were, or claimed through, persons who since 1857 or earlier had been in possession. By

Law Rep. 56 Ind. App. 248 ( 1928- 1929) Subramanya Chettiar V. Subramanya Mudaliyar

86

their written statement they alleged that as to part of the land they had a permanent right of occupancy, and that consequently it should be excluded from the partition. The question upon the present appeal was whether the appellants had the right they claimed.

The facts of the case appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The High Court (Wallis C.J. and Sadasiva Ayyar J.) held that the burden of proof was upon the appellants and that they had not discharged it. The decree of the Subordinate Judge was varied accordingly.

1929. March 7, 8. Dunne K.C. and E. B. Raikes for the appellants.

De Gruyther K.C. and Dube for the first respondent.

March 19. The