1949 (6) TMI 2 - HC - Income Tax

Burden of Proof in Ejectment: Plaintiff Must Prove Immediate Possession

Kumbham Lakshmanna and Ors. Versus Tangirala Venkateswarlu and Ors.

The court clarified that the burden of proof in an ejectment suit lies on the plaintiff to establish the right to immediate possession. In this case, the ... - Issues Involved:1. Burden of Proof in Ejectment Suit2. Evidence and Occupancy Rights of TenantsDetailed Analysis:1. Burden of Proof in Ejectment Suit:The primary legal issue is whether, in a suit by a holder of a minor inam to eject tenants, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to show a right to evict by proving the grant included both melvaram and kudivaram interests or that tenants were let into possession under a terminable lease, or whether the burden is on the tenants to prove their occupancy rights. This is a question of law.The judgment clarifies that the initial burden of proof in an ejectment suit lies on the plaintiff to prove the right to immediate possession. This principle is consistent with established legal norms, as emphasized in the Indian Evidence Act, Sections 101 and 102. The plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case, after which the burden shifts to the defendant to provide rebutting evidence.The court referenced various precedents, including Suryanarayana v. Patanna (1918) and Upadrashta Venkata Sastrulu v. Divi Seetharamudu (1921), which affirmed that there is no presumption that an inam grant conveys only melvaram. Each case must be considered on its own facts. The decision in Nainapillai Marakayar v. Ramanathan Chettiar (1923) was interpreted to mean that the burden of proving permanent tenancy lies on the tenant only when the landlord's title to both varams is admitted or proved.2. Evidence and Occupancy Rights of Tenants:The second issue is whether the burden has been discharged by the party on whom it lies, which is mainly a question of fact.The plaintiff alleged that the land was initially waste and that his predecessors obtained both melvaram and kudivaram rights under the grant. He relied on lease deeds executed by the defendants, which he claimed contained admissions of his rights. The defendants countered that they had been in possession from time immemorial, enjoying kudivaram rights, and that the lease deeds were not binding as they were executed without knowledge of their contents.The trial court held that the burden of proof lay on the plaintiff and concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove his right to eject the defendants, who had acquired occupancy rights. The High Court, however, was divided on this issue. One judge believed the burden lay on the tenants to prove their occupancy rights, while another held that the burden lay on the plaintiff.Upon review, it was determined that the plaintiff did not discharge the burden of proof. The evidence, including lease deeds and oral testimonies, was insufficient to prove that the plaintiff had a right to evict the defendants. The court noted that the lease deeds did not necessarily negate the defendants' occupancy rights and that the defendants' long possession and partitions of the land without objection from the plaintiff supported their claim to kudivaram rights.Conclusion:The judgment concluded that the burden of proof in an ejectment suit lies on the plaintiff to prove the right to evict. The plaintiff in this case failed to discharge this burden, and the defendants' long possession and other circumstances supported their claim to occupancy rights. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's decree was set aside, and the trial court's decree dismissing the plaintiff's suit was restored.