PARVATANENI VENKATRAMIAH Vs. PARVATANENI NARAYUDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question is this case is whether the plaintiff who is a minor inamdar is also entitled to the kudivaram right in the lands from which he seeks to eject the defendants.

(2.) It has been decided in In re Bhabrayya Gudepillai 21 M.L.J. 803; 10. M.L.T.54; 11 Ind. Cas. 545 that when a minor inam has been carved out of a...as in this case, the presumption is that only the melvaram right was granted as an inam (see also Appeal Suit No. 137 of 1908). The inam register and the cazalet s register (Exhibits F and G) do not prove that the lands themselves were granted as inam, and it is not probable that the lands themselves were so granted when the zemindar himself had presumably no rights in the kudivaram. In all these cases, the inamdar ought to show that he himself let the defendants as tenants at the beginning of their occupation of the land if he wishes the Court to hold that he owned kudivaram right also and was, therefore, entitled to eject the defendants.

(3.) The distinction sought to be drawn by the appellant s learned Counsel, Mr. T. Praksam, between the presumption to be drawn in respect of inam grants by zemindars prior to the Permanent Settlement and of such grants subsequent to the Permanent Settlement, is not borne out by the decided leases, and we are not prepared to hold that zemindars owned any kudivaram rights before the Permanent Settlement, or that rights were taken away at that time or by the decisions of Courts subsequently.