JUDGMENT

Maclean, C.J. - Appeal No. 27. The Judicial Committee in the case of Nilratan Mandol v. Ismail Khan Mahomed 8 C.W.N. 895: s.c. ILR 32 Cal. 51. 57 (1904) says the passage is to be found at page 61- "The question here, as in other similar cases, is whether the true inference from the facts is that the tenure is permanent or precarious, the burden of proof being on the tenant." In the present case, the Munsif and the Subordinate Judge have both arrived at the conclusion that upon the facts they have found in the case they are justified in inferring that the holding in question was of a permanent and not of a precarious nature. The question then we have to decide is whether they were justified in drawing that inference. I can hardly think that so experienced a Judge in these matters as Mr. Justice Mitra, although his language is perhaps a little ambiguous, meant to hold that this was really a question of fact in the sense that he would be bound by the findings of fact of the lower Appellate Court. He knows the difference between an inference to be drawn from facts and findings of facts themselves: and if I might draw an inference from his judgment,-I think he meant to hold that