The onus of proving the right to eject lies with the plaintiff, and in the absence of such proof, the court will not grant the ejectment.

1. It appears that these lands were held by Timmalapally Ramakrishnamaiya and others, but as to when they got possession there is no evidence. They fell into arrears and Meruvu Gopalaswami, the vendor to the defendants, was allowed to come into possession of the lands on condition of his paying the arrears. Such being the case it must be assumed that Meruvu Gopalaswami continued to hold the lands on the same terms as his predecessors. In 1891 Meruvu Gopalaswami sold his rights over the lands to the defendants. The plaintiff is a purchaser from an Inamdar, but it is not alleged or proved that the lands themselves were given to his vendor as Inam, or, in other words, that the kudivaram or any portion of it was granted to him as Inam. There is consequently no presumption that the predecessors in title of the defendants derived their title to the kudivaram from the Inamdar. Such being the case the Subordinate Judge has rightly thrown on the plaintiff the onus of proving that be is entitled to eject the defendants. The appellant relies on Exhibits J and H 4 as showing that the defendants are only yearly tenants. We do not consider that these documents establish the character of the tenancy of the defendants. In Exh. J (Dec. 1883) Meruvu Gopalaswami, the vendor to the defendants, recites the amount that he is bound to pay as kist for Fasli 1293 and concludes by saying that after the end of the Fasli he will not touch the land without obtaining a fresh cowle. This is merely an undertaking on his part that he will not commence to cultivate in the ensuing year without first obtaining cowle from the Inamdar and is perfectly consistent with a right of occupancy on his part. The same observations apply to. Exh. H 4 where the tenant states that at the end of the term of 4 years to which that document relates, he shall continue to cultivate the land but shall not enter on the land for the purpose of cultivation till he receives a cowle from the Inamdar. Here again there is nothing, in our opinion, inconsistent with a right of occupancy in the defendants vendor. As the onus of proving the right to eject was on the plaintiff, and as he has, in our opinion, failed to discharge that onus, we must hold that this second appeal has failed and dismiss it with costs. We remark that the Subordinate Judge should have passed an order either admitting or rejecting the extract from the Inam Register which was produced before him in appeal.