Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. My learned brother has fully dealt with the facts and the points of law involved in these Second Appeals. I add a few words in my own language out of respect to the strenuous arguments advanced by the appellants learned Vakil.

2. Having regard to the observations in the case reported in Bhadrayya v. Bapayya (1909) 21 M.L.J. 803 and Lakshmi Narasimha Row v. Seetaramaswami (1913) 24 M.L.J. 288 Venkata Narasimha Appa Row v. Subba Reddi (1912) 24 M.L.J.655 Narasimhacharyalu v. Ramabrahmam (1912) 24 M.L.J 656, Veerabadra v. Sonti Venkanna (1913) 24 M.L.J. 659, and to the Judgment in Appeal No. 437 of 1908 and S.A. No. 168 of 1912, I think that no distinction should be made between an Inamdar and a Zemindar as to the presumption to be raised in respect of the kudivaram right in lands of which the Inamdar or the Zemindar is the proprietor. In other words the presumption ought to be that the Inamdar or the Zemindar is not the owner of the kudivaram. There are, no doubt, some observations in the cases of Indety China Nagadu v. Potu Konchi Venkatasubbayya (1910) M.W.N. 639 and Marapu Tharalu v. Telukula Neelakanta Behara (1907) I.L.R. 30 M. 502, which favour the a