Wallace, J.

1. The point for decision in these civil revision petitions is whether the village of Yellainaikanpatti of which the petitioner is an inamdar, has been shown to be an estate under the Madras Estates Land Act. This is a mixed question of fact and law.

2. The plaintiffs are tenants of the village and sued in the Revenue Court of the Sub-Collector of Tuticorin for pattas on the footing that they possess occupancy rights. That Court held that the village was. not an estate and dismissed the suit. The District Judge on appeal held that "the village is an estate, and remanded the suits for hearing on the other issues. The defendant comes up in revision. His main contention is that the District Judge has not rightly understood the law on the matter, and has passed his judgment not on the evidence, but on unfounded surmises of his own.

3. The onus of showing that they are entitled to bring suits in the special Revenue Court lies undoubtedly on the plaintiffs. Both the lower Courts have found that the oral evidence is of practically no use in deciding the present point; and the only documents that have been relied upon before me on the one side or the other are Exs. UU, an