SITAMRAJU RAMABRAHMAM Vs. MLAKSHMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question whether the defendant has occupancy right is one of fact. THE judge is not right in saying that 25 years possession would by itself confer occupancy right on the defendant but it is good evidence of such right. Possibly this was all that the Judge meant. THE land being an Inam the presumption also is that the Kudivaram was not vested in the plaintiff. THE defendant s written statement cannot be said to contain any admission that his claim of occupancy right was only under an express grant. We must accept the Judge s finding and dismiss the second appeal.