SAMINATHA IYER Vs. MARIMUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One of the questions on which the Subordinate Judge was asked to return a finding was, whether the defendants held the back-yard of his house under the plaintiffs or their ancestors as Kasavargam tenants. The finding is in the negative. But Mr. Ramachandra Iyer, who appears for the defendants, contends that we ought not to accept the finding because the Subordinate Judge has not given proper weight to Exhibit D, the document filed by his client, and that the reasoning of the Subordinate Judge in dealing with the evidence is not satisfactory. I may mention t.hat the District Munsif who tried this suit had also found this point in favour of the defendants, and so did the Subordinate Judge in appeal. We did not consider the judgment of the lower Appellate Court satisfactory because no reference was made to Exhibits A and B, the Paymash and the Village Register. Both the documents have now been considered by the Subordinate Judge. He states in one place in his judgment that they show that the defendants, or rather their ancestors, occupied the back-yard under Subbaramier a,3 the plaintiffs ancestor. But, as a matter of fact, both these documents only show that Subbaramier was the holder of the pattah. And this is really what the Subordinate Judge means, for he afterwards goes on to point out that it is not shown that the defendants or their ancestors held the land as Kasavargam tenants of Subbaramier or his ancestors. His conclusion upon the evidence is that the defendants or their ancestors might have held the land as Kasavargam tenants, but. it is not proved that they so held under the plaintiffs. He also considers Exhibit, D and is of opinion that under Exhibit D, which is a partition deed of 1885 entered into by the members of the defendants family, the back-yard in dispute is included in the first item of the properties divided. That is apparently so. But Mr. Ramachandra Iyer contends that Exhibit D contains an admission that the back-yard belongs to Subbarama Iyer. But it seems to me that even supposing that the boundaries given in Exhibit D are merely of the house, the description of the backyard as Subbaramier s would not carry the plaintiffs case any further than Exhibits A and B. The description might be explained by the fact that the pattah stood in the name of Subbaramier. The Subordinate Judge points out that there is no evidence to show whether this Subbaramier or any of his ancestors let the defendant or his ancestor into possession of the land. Then he considers also the oral evidence. He finds upon the oral evidence that it. is not proved that the defendant or his family ever rendered services to the plaintiff in lieu of any grant made to them. He finds that whenever the defendant or any member of his family rendered services to the plaintiffs, they were given fall wages. And he also points out that, whatever manure was supplied to the plaintiff was paid for by them.

(2.) It seems to me that the conclusion at which the Subordinate Judge arrived after considering the oral and documentary evidence in the case must be upheld in second appeal.

(3.) I, therefore, dismiss the second appeal with costs. Sundara Aiyar, J.