The temple was required to prove its title to the land before presuming the defendant's holding under the temple.

Sundara Aiyar, J.

1. I am unable to say that there is any legal objection to the finding that the temple is not proved to be the owner of the plot in question. The case for the appellant has been put in this way. The documents show that the defendant was holding the land on Kosuaryam tenure. The defendant was doing gurrukkal service in the temple. It is not proved or alleged that the defendant was holding the land under any particular mirasidar, and, therefore, it must be taken that he was holding under the temple, being the only person whom the defendant was serving. The inference may be a proper one for a Court of fact to draw. But I cannot say that the lower Courts were mistaken in holding that the temple was bound to prove its title to the land before it could presume, on account of the incidence of Kasavaryam tenure, that the defendant, a Kesavaryamdar, was holding under the owner of the temple.

2. The argument practically amounts to this, that the defendant was holding under some one and as he cannot say that that person is other than the temple, he must be taken to be holding under the temple. I cannot say that the lower Courts were wrong in law in refusing to draw the inference.

3. It is also urged that Exhibit V has been misconstrued. But, on reference to paragraph 7 of the Munsifs judgment, I am unable to say that he holds that Exhibit V furnishes positive evidence against the title of the temple. He only says that it furnishes no evidence in favour of its title, while it does with respect to other plots which were in its actual occupation. There is, no doubt, a considerable body of evidence adduced from which a different conclusion might have been arrived at. But I cannot say that there is any question in second appeal.

4. I dismiss the appeal.