https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199693 Land used predominantly as a mango tope was treated as garden land, so incidental cultivation of dry crops and vegetables in vacant patches did not bring it within the tenancy regime. The defendant's plea of tenancy failed because he gave inconsistent versions and produced no lease deed, rent proof, revenue record, or reliable supporting witnesses; the burden to prove tenancy lay on him under Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act. With tenancy unproved, the defendant's occupation was accepted as permissive, and the plaintiffs' title supported recovery of possession. The controlling principle stated was that the essential character of land depends on its predominant use, not on incidental cultivation. en-us Tue, 20 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Mar 2018 14:12:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199693 Land used predominantly as a mango tope was treated as garden land, so incidental cultivation of dry crops and vegetables in vacant patches did not bring it within the tenancy regime. The defendant's plea of tenancy failed because he gave inconsistent versions and produced no lease deed, rent proof, revenue record, or reliable supporting witnesses; the burden to prove tenancy lay on him under Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act. With tenancy unproved, the defendant's occupation was accepted as permissive, and the plaintiffs' title supported recovery of possession. The controlling principle stated was that the essential character of land depends on its predominant use, not on incidental cultivation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 20 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199693