TIRUVANDHIPURAM LAKSHMI KUMARA AKKULU NAYANIM VARU, ZEMINDAR OF CHITTEDU BY HIS GUMASHTAH, GUDALI RAMIAH Vs. PALLETI PEDDA NARAYANAPPA NAYUDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We accept the findings of the District Judge on the first two points referred to him: that is, that both the sinking of the wells and the payment of the garden rates must be referred to some period prior to Fasli 1290, but how long before, it is impossible to say in either case.

(2.) The third point was, "whether the defendants were paying garden rates before the wells were sunk." On this the District Judge says there is practically no evidence and he can come to no definite conclusion, although he considers it "not unlikely that the garden rates and the sinking of the wells were contemporaneous." We cannot treat this very guarded surmise ns a finding and can only take it that no finding is possible.

(3.) In these circumstances, what conclusion should be arrived at? In our opinion, the landlord s claim must be allowed.