The main legal point established in the judgment is the tenant's obligation to preserve land boundaries and the application of equity and good conscience in resolving property disputes.

1. The plaintiff by the plaint filed in suit 258 of 1879, claims to have the proprietary right in land assessed at Us. 14-6-4 in varg No. 23 in Vakavadi village and sues to recover rent therefor from 1872 from the defendant, who is stated in the plaint to hold on chalgaini lease. He also sues to have a portion of the three vargs, viz., No. 2, No. 23, and No. 25 in the same village, and in the possession of the defendant, held at a rent of Rs. 14-6-4 per annum payable to Government, and 41/2 to 51/2 muras of rice to the Aneigadi Ganapathi Devastanam and 41 regulation muras to the plaintiffs mattam, delivered to him.

2. The suit for demarcation and delivery of portion of the three vargs in the defendants possession to the plaintiffs is founded on the allegation that the varg No. 23 was demised to the defendants ancestors very many years ago, and that they did not preserve the boundaries of that varg, but allowed them to be destroyed, so that the landlords land, yarg No. 23, cannot be distinguished from varg Nos. 2 and 25.

3. The second, third and fourth defendants are ex parte. The first defendant denied the plaintiffs proprietary right and the chalgaini lease, and alleged that the proprietary right is in him (first defendant). He did not claim to be a tenant on mulgaini tenure.

4. Both the Lower Courts found on very clear evidence that the plaintiffs are the proprietors of the varg No. 23, and that it was let to the defendants ancestors at the rent above specified, and that such rents were paid by the first defendant down to 1872. The defendant admitted he was in possession of portion of varg No. 23, but both Courts found as a fact that the defendant is in possession of whole of varg No. 23.

5. The Munsif made a decree for three years arrears of rent before suit, and refused to order delivery of any portion of the three vargs upon the ground that the plaintiff had not proved any chalgaini lease, or what part of those lands in possession of the first defendant included the lands of varg No. 23.

6. The Subordinate Judge, in appeal, affirmed the Munsifs decree as to the arrears of rent to be paid, but, in addition, held that the defendant as tenant was bound to preserve the boundaries and did not do so and he awarded that so much land as would pay the rents above mentioned out of the 115 plots of land, which constitutes the vargs two and twenty-three of the Vakavadi village, be delivered over to the second plaintiff. The quantities and qualities of the land directed to be delivered are set out by the Subordinate Judge in detail in his decree.

7. In second appeal several questions were raised, but the following only were pressed in argument:

First.--That, as the first defendant was tenant at all events on chalgaini lease, he was entitled to notice to quit.

But as the defendant denied his landlords title, he was clearly not entitled to such notice. Defendant set Up title not subordinate to the plaintiff, but proprietary title, and he failed.

Second.--First defendant contended that it lay on the plaintiff to prove where the lands were which he sought to recover from the defendant and that the Subordinate Judge had wrongly thrown the burden of proof as to the boundary of the varg lands on the defendant.

8. However, the defendant, by reason of his relation of tenant, was bound to preserve the boundaries of the lands he so held as tenant and not to permit them to be destroyed; and especially so when he owned other lands adjoining those demised to him. He should not have permitted his own and his landlords lands to have become so intermixed that the boundary of each could not be ascertained. The onus is rightly thrown on the tenant of distinguishing his own property. See notice to Wake v. Conyers 2 Tudors L.C. p. 433.

9. In Attorney-General v. Fullerton 2 Vesey & B. 264, Lord Eldon says--"It has long been settled law and is not now to be unhinged that a tenant contracts, among other obligations resulting from the relation, to keep distinct