1. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the plaintiff an agraharamdar should have sued to eject his tenants, the defendants, in a Revenue Court, not before the District Munsif, on the ground that the suit village is an estate. The Appeal has been argued on the grounds that (1) burden of proof regarding the character of the suit village was imposed on the plaintiff wrongly (2) there was, in any case, a failure to consider material evidence.

2. The plaintiff does not rely on Section 8, Estates Land Act; and the question therefore is only whether this village is an estate within the meaning of Section 3(2)(d); that is whether (1) the land revenue alone has been granted in inam (2) the grantee was a person not owning the kudivaram. Now if the nature of his tenure were under consideration with direct reference only to his right to sue in ejectment, there is no doubt that the authorities cited by the lower court would have been in point and its conclusion correct. But the dispute at present is as to jurisdiction, and as to it the first rule is that the party seeking to oust the jurisdiction of the ordinary civil courts must establish his right to do so. This is recognised