VELUSAMI TEVAR Vs. AROKYA UDAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are suits to eject defendant in each case from the land held by him in the Inam village of Pathur which is held by plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 as Sarva Maniyam Inam. Plaintiffs Nos. 3 and 4 are mortgagees under the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs.

(2.) According to the plaintiffs, the defendants hold their land on leases granted by the 3rd and 4th plaintiffs for the Fasli years 1311 to 1313. The defendant s case is that 500 kurukam as of land were leased to their ancestors the Nathambadi Christains by the inamdars in 1861 in the names of two persons, Sourimathu and French, on a permanent occupancy-right and that they are not liable to be ejected. The plaintiffs admitted the lease of 1861 but contended that it was made by the above-named two individuals for their own benefit only, that the lease was abandoned by those two individuals and that subsequently different portions of land were leased from time to time to the defendant s ancestors and to the defendants. The plaintiffs say that the defendants have been evicted and were oat of possession daring Fastis 1307 to 1310 and were let into occupation again in Fasli 1311. The lower Appellate Court has found that the letting of 1861 was really made for the benefit of the families of all the Nathambadi Christians and not for the benefit of the Sourimuthu and French alone, and we accept this finding.

(3.) We also concur with the District Judge in, holding that the lease of 1861, of which Exhibit DD is a copy, conferred a permanent right of occupancy on the lessees. There is no evidence of any express surrender of their rights under Exhibit DD. On the other hand, it is admitted that the defendants were accepting separate pattas from the plaintiffs for different portions of the 500 kurukkams, that the inamdar instituted separate suits against them for rent and that some of them sued the inamdar separately in 1895 to compel him to give them separate pattas. The District Munsif, who passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs, observes, in paragraph 12 of his judgment, with reference to the pattas issued to and accepted by the defendants: "I find that the same land is not cultivated by the same tenant in all Faslis or for any series of Faslis continuously." He then points out that the extent of the land included in the patta of each ryot varies in different years. In paragraph 16, he says: "From the above it is seen that the lands included in the pattas form only a portion of the 500 Kurukkams referred to in Exhibit DD., that the defendants have not been in possession of the lands claimed by them uniformly or for any consecutive years." He furl her observes that the public accounts, Exhibits D series to H series, along with the pattas show that the defendant s possession and enjoyment have not been such as to justify the finding "that the plaintiffs are not owners of the soil entitled to eject the defendants." He held that the defendants have for a long time held their lands not under Exhibit DD but under separate leases.