SRI SATODA BIHARA MAHAPATRA KONDAMODALU LINGA REDDI ALIAS SULLEE ABHOYEE Vs. SREE RAJAH KOCHERLAKOTAH VENKATA KRISHNA ROW BAHADUR ZAMINDAR GARU, PROPRIETOR OF POLAVARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit by the Zamindar of Polavaram to recover a certain village named Kondamadulu described in Schedule A attached to the plaint, and the forest which formed part of the same village and is described in Schedule B. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant is only a tenant from year to year and that the tenancy has been determined by due notice to quit. The defendant alleges that1 he is a Mokhasadar entitled to a perpetual tenure. He is not a cultivating tenant of the property but an intermediate holder between the Zamindar and the cultivating tenants. The Kabuliat executed by the Zamindar to Government under the permanent settlement, which is Exhibit A, shows that Kondamodulu is not amongst the Mokhasas of which a list is given. There is no dispute in the case that Kondamodulu is included in the Zamindari, although the name does not appear in the list of Jirayati villages given in that document. It is stated for the respondent, and there is evidence in support of the view, that Kondamodulu is only a hamlet of Kondrakota Muttah. Koudrakottah is expressly mentioned in the list of Jirayati villages. Mr. Napier who appeared for the appellant very properly conceded that there is no evidence of the original grant of the Mokhasa to the defendant and it seems to us clear, from Exhibit A, that Kondamodulu was not a Mokhasa at the date of the permanent settlement. It is, whatever the tenure, of the nature of a subordinate interest carved by the Zamindar. When the holder of such subordinate interest contends that it is a permanent tenure, in that the holds, and there is no document on the language of which he relies to make out, such a permanent tenure, the burden is upon him of establishing the permanency of the tenure by other evidence in the case. We are, therefore, to examine the somewhat volu minous evidence that has been adduced in the case on both sides and to find out whether the defendant has made out his plea of a permanent tenure. [Their Lordships after discussing the evidence in detail went on to observe as follows: - ED]

(2.) We think we have discussed really all the evidence that has been commented on before us. We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the defendant has utterly failed to show that he had a permanent interest in the property. The only residual fact that may be said to have been established by the defendant is that for a period commencing about the year 1831 and extending to the year 1864, an unvarying rent of Rs. 60 was being paid, though even in this period it appears there were other persons associated with the defendent as joint Ijaradar for some time. We cannot on this fact rest a conclusion of permanent right in the defendant

(3.) Even if the onus lay upon the plaintiff, we should be inclined to hold that the plaintiff has discharged it and has shown that there is no permanent right in the defendant as regards the suit village.