Burden of proof in ejectment suits against cultivating ryots: plaintiff must prove immediate possession and right to evict.

In an ejectment dispute between an inamdar and cultivating ryots, the plaintiff had to prove a present right to possession and the legal basis for eviction; no presumption applied that the grant carried only the melvaram where the occupiers' status and the original grant were disputed. The evidence, including muchilikas, later kaths, long family possession, recognised partitions, and the limited value of the admissions relied on, did not establish that the defendants entered under a terminable tenancy or that the plaintiff had superior title to evict. The result stated in the text is that the suit failed and the defendants remained in possession.

---

---

Issues: (i) In a suit by a holder of a minor inam to eject cultivating ryots, on whom lay the burden of proving the right to evict and the existence of occupancy rights. (ii) Whether, on the evidence, that burden was discharged.

Issue (i): In ejectment suits, the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to establish a right to immediate possession and to show the basis of the claimed right to eject. The principle said to arise from the tenant's assertion of permanent tenancy applies only where the landlord's title to the land itself is already admitted or proved and the occupier was let into possession by him. In disputes between an inamdar and cultivating ryots, there is no presumption that the grant conveyed only the melvaram, and the case must be decided on its own facts.

Conclusion: The burden of proving the right to eject lay on the plaintiff, not on the defendants.

Issue (ii): The documentary and oral evidence, including the muchilikas and later kaths, did not satisfactorily prove that the plaintiff's predecessors were granted both varams or that the defendants entered under a terminable tenancy. The long possession of the defendants' families, the recognition of their partitions, the nature of the original grant to a non-resident Brahmin, and the weakness of the admissions relied upon by the plaintiff were all inconsistent with the plaintiff's claim. On the whole evidence, the plaintiff failed to establish a superior title to evict.

Conclusion: The burden was not discharged by the plaintiff.

Final Conclusion: The decree of the High Court was set aside and the trial court's dismissal of the suit was restored, leaving the defendants in possession.

Ratio Decidendi: In an ejectment suit by an inamdar against cultivating ryots, the plaintiff must first prove a right to immediate possession and cannot rely on any presumption that the grant carried only one interest; where the evidence does not establish the plaintiff's title to evict, the suit fails.

---