The legal principle established in the judgment is that the presumption in inam grants is not that only the melvaram is granted and that each case must be judged on its own facts.

1. The Subordinate Judge has discussed the evidence at some length and in arriving at a finding he has allowed himself, not unnaturally, to be influenced by the decisions of this Court laying down that the presumption in inam grants is that it is the melvaram alone that is granted, The decisions he refers to have since been overruled by the Judicial Committee: vide Suryanarayana v. Patanna 48 Ind. Cas. 689 : 41 M. 1012 : 25 M.L.T. 30 : 23 C.W.N. 273 : 9 L.W. 126 : 29 C.L.J. 153 : 1 U.P.L.R. (P.C.) 11 : 36 M.L.J. 685 : 21 Bom. L.R. 547 : (1919) M.W.N. 463 : 45 I.A. 209 (P.C.) and Upadrashta Venkata Satrulu v. Divi Seetharamudu 61 Ind Cas. 304 : 37 M.L.J. 42 : 43 M. 166 : 17 A.L.J. 725 : 21 Bom. L.R. 925 : 26 M.L.T. 175 : 30 C.L.J. 441 : 10 L.W. 633 : 24 C.W.N. 129 : 46 I.A. 123 (P.C.). We are, therefore, unable to accept his finding. We must ask the Subordinate Judge to return a fresh finding on Issues Nos. 3 and 4, in the light of the observations contained in the judgments of the Judicial Commit tee. No fresh evidence will be taken. Finding is to be submitted within six weeks and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.

2. In compliance with the order contained in the above judgment, the Additional Temporary Subordinate Judge of Guntur submitted the following.

3. Finding--As per remand order, I submit findings on the following Issues Nos. 3 and 4:

(3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to eject the defendants from the suit land.

(4) Whether the defendants have occupancy rights in the suit land.

2. Issue No. 3 relates to plaintiffs right to eject the defendants from suit land and Issue No. 4 to defendants alleged rights of occupancy in the said land.

3. Suit land is a minor inam granted as serva dumbala, free of tax, to one Elavarti Koverlu Acharlu by a Zemindarni of Chilakalurpet. The original sanad granting the inam has not been filed. According to the decisions of the Judicial Committee in Suryanarayana v. Pafanna 48 Ind. Cas. 689 : 41 M. 1012 : 25 M.L.T. 30 : 23 C.W.N. 273 : 9 L.W. 126 : 29 C.L.J. 153 : 1 U.P.L.R. (P.C.) 11 : 36 M.L.J. 685 : 21 Bom. L.R. 547 : (1919) M.W.N. 463 : 45 I.A. 209 (P.C.) and Upadrathta Venkata Sastrulu v. Divi Seetharamudu 61 Ind Cas. 304 : 37 M.L.J. 42 : 43 M. 166 : 17 A.L.J. 725 : 21 Bom. L.R. 925 : 26 M.L.T. 175 : 30 C.L.J. 441 : 10 L.W. 633 : 24 C.W.N. 129 : 46 I.A. 123 (P.C.), sited in the order of remand, there is no presumption in inam grants that it is the melvaram alone that is granted. As stated in page 45 Page of 37 M.L.J.--[Ed] of the latter case, there is no such presumption that the land does not include the kudivaram and that each case must be judged on its own fasts and in order to ascertain the effect of the grant in the present case resort must be had to the terms of the grant itself and to the whole circumstances so far as they can now be ascertained." When the case same on for arguments for the findings, unfortunately the appellants were unrepresented, as they did nor appear by Pleader or in person, though the respondents were represented by their Vakil, who argued for them. It has to be seen on all the fasts and circumstances of this case what the landlord and the tenants have proved, in "respect of their respective pleas on Issues Nos. 3 and 4.

4. The facts established in this case have been set out in detail in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the judgment, dated 3rd August 1918. In the present ease, the original sanad granting the inam has not been filed. Lease Exhibit A, dated 1818, shows that even to long ago, the suit land was leased to tenants. There is no reliable evidence that ever since the landlords have been cultivating the lands. On the other hand, the later leases, Exhibits A1, dated 1853, A2, dated 1874, and A3, dated 1883, show that the suit land was being leased out and as shown in paragraph 4 of the former judgment, defendants family have been in continuous possession of suit inam for over 50 years at least, since Exhibit A1, dated 1853, and none of those l