https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288268 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. en-us Tue, 14 Jun 1949 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 May 2020 18:29:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288268 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. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 14 Jun 1949 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288268