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