EKADASI SAHU Vs. HARI SANKAR SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit for eviction of the Defendant who are admittedly tenants under the Plaintiffs. The plea taken by the Defendant is that they were inducted as permanent tenants upon the suit lands some 40 or 50 years ago. The concurrent finding of fact of the Courts below is that the Defendant and his ancestors have been in uninterrupted possession of the suit lands for over 40 years. The Courts below have also concurrently found that the Defendant's possession was being continued by temporary leases executed by the Plaintiff's ancestors. As the Defendants refused to quit the suit was filed in 1948 for their eviction. The Plaintiffs relied on Ext. 2 and Ext. 3 which are respectively lease -deeds executed by Purandar in favour of the Defendants' ancestor. Ext. 2 is dated 10th January 1899 and Ext. 3 is dated 26th April, 1919. Another document relied on by the Plaintiffs is Ext. 4, which was executed by Ekadasi on 15th February, 1944 in favour of the Plaintiffs. There is no dispute about the genuineness of these documents. The only objection taken against their admissibility was that they came from the custody of the Plaintiffs though they purport to be pattas. The explanation offered on behalf of the Plaintiffs is that at the expiry of the term of the lease, the documents were returned to the Plaintiffs and a .fresh document was executed. This explanation has satisfied the courts below, as it has satisfied us, as being natural and probable. We would, therefore, in agreement with the Courts below, accept these documents as genuine.

(2.) APART from that, there is a considerable body of oral evidence in support of the Plaintiffs' case that the Defendants and his ancestors were merely temporary cultivators of the land under the Plaintiffs and his ancestors. The tenancy having been admitted by the Defendants the onus was upon them to show that it was of a permanent character. The Defendants plea throughout has been that at the very inception of the grant it was a permanent tenancy. On the evidence before us, we are bound to accept the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the Defendants have failed to prove that there was any such permanent tenancy to start with. No such grant has been proved, nor has any evidence been adduced to justify the reference that there was a permanent tenancy.

(3.) WE would, therefore, accept the findings of the Courts below and dismiss this appeal with costs.