Judgement

Appeal (No. 41 of 1946) from a judgment and decree of the High Court

Law Rep. 76 Ind. App. 202 ( 1948- 1949) Kumbham Lakshmanna V. Tangirala Venkateswarlu

112

(September 28, 1943) which reversed a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam (September 6, 1941) and allowed the plaintiffs (respondents) suit with costs.

The main question in this appeal was whether in a suit by a holder of a minor inam to eject the tenants from the holding, the burden was on the plaintiff to make out a right to evict by proving that the grant included both the melvaram and the kudivaram interests, or that the tenants or their predecessors were let into possession by the inamdar under a terminable lease, or whether the burden was on the tenants to prove that they had occupancy rights.

The trial court held that the burden lay on the plaintiff to make out a right to evict the tenants, while the High Court held that the burden of proof lay on the tenants to prove that they had occupancy rights.

The facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

1949. Feb. 23, Mar. 1, 2, 8, 10. Jayakar and L. E. H. Fellows for the appellants (the tenants). The original grant is lost, and