ARUNACHALA SASTRY Vs. KRISHNA SASTRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCORDING to the recent decision in Indety Nagadu V/s. Potu Kinchi Venkatasubbiah 1 M.W.N. 639 : 8 M.L.T. 376 : 8 Ind. Cas. 365, it is for the, defendant who raises a defence of this kind to show that the land in question forms part of an estate as defined in the Madras Estates Land Act I of 1908. The definition in Section 3 Clause 2(d) is expressly limited to villages in which the land revenue alone has been granted in inam a person not owning the Kudivaram right. There is no evidence, and no presumption, that such is the case here. The decree must be set aside, and a decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs for Rs. 6 with costs throughout.