The burden of proof lies on the tenant to establish permanent rights of occupancy in the ryotwari system.

Napier, J.

1. This is an appeal from the District Court of Tinnevelly in a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover possession of certain property from the 1st defendant, the suit being based on a lease granted to the 1st defendant and on title. The present 2nd defendant applied to be made a party alleging 1hat neither the plaintiff nor the 1st defendant had ever any right to the land. This defendant alleged further that he was the owner, and that he was in possession and pleaded adverse possession from enjoyment by his ancestors. The 1st defendant remained ex parte and the suit proceeded between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant and some supplementary parties.

2. The issues framed were "whether the plaint mentioned lease is true and valid, whether the plaint mentioned land belongs to plaintiff and whether plaintiff has been in possession within the statutory period."

3. The plaintiff has ali along denied that the 2nd defendant was his tenant and, as far as he is concerned, sought to recover the land on his title. The contention of the 2nd defendant before the lower appellate court was that the plaintiff was only a farmer of the revenue of the land, that the 1st defendant never had any interest and that he had a permanent right of occupancy in it. This contention was negatived by the Court which held that the plaintiff was the sole owner of the land and the 2nd defendant although he had shown possession had not established a permanent right of occupancy.

4. Before us the appellant (2nd defendant) put forward the contention that the plaintiff was a mere melvaramdar and that the ownership of the land was in him. The land being Government ryotwari, this contention would entail the proposition that in addition to the position of the Government as owning the melvaram there can be another melvaramdar introduced between Government and the owner of the land. Speaking for myself, I was surprised to hear such an argument put forward. But I find that the same contention was advanced in the well-known case in Veeranan Ambalam Peria Karuppan Ambalam v. Annaswami Aiyar (1911) 21 M.L.J. 845. Whatever else was decided in that case, however, this contention was negatived, and it does not require serious consideration. There is not a trace anywhere in the Law Reports of the view that Government in granting patta was only granting a portion of its share in the revenue as in some case of Inams. The real substantial argument before us was that although the plaintiff was the owner of the land the 2nd defendant should be held on the evidence to be entitled to permanent rights of occupancy on the analogy of a zemindary tenant prior to the Madras Estates Land Act. It must be conceded at once that the decision in Veeranan Ambalam Peria Karuppan Ambalam v. Annaswami Aiyar (1911) 21 M.L.J. 845 and Venkatachella Gonndan v. Rangaralhnam Aiyar (1913) 24 M.L.J. 571 go some way to support the appellants contention. The decision in Veeranan Ambalam Peria Karuppan Ambalam v. Annaswami Aiyar (1911) 21 M.L.J. 845 seems to treat one particular question as of great importance, namely, whether it has been shown that the defendants possession commenced under the plaintiff, while the decision in Venkatachella Goundan v. Rangarathnam Aiyar (1913) 24 M.L.J. 571 seems to be founded on the proposition that a pattadar must show that he let the tenant into possession and that he was in fact a tenant from year to year. The learned Judges in the latter case also seem to hold that the fact that a patta was granted by Government is no indication that another person found in possession has not permanent occupancy rights but that the pattadar must show that the customary mode of holding land in that place justified the presumption that the tenant has no permanent rights of occupancy. This question has been argued before me on two previous occasions, once in S.A. No. 684 of 1917 sitting with my learned brother and once in Ananthapamanabha v. Gopalakrishnier (1915) M.W.N. 277