NAINAPILLAI MARAKAYAR Vs. RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two consolidated appeals by defendants or their representatives from decrees, dated December 22, 1916, of the High Court at Madras, which dismissed two appeals from decrees, dated April 24, 1914, which a Subordinate Judge of Tanjore had made in original suits 40 and 42 of 1913 in favour of the plaintiffs for the ejectment of the defendants from lands, including groves, in Tanjore and for mesne profits.

(2.) THE plaintiffs in each of the suits were five of the six trustees of the Mantrapureeswarasami temple in Kovilur, in Tanjore. That temple will hereafter be referred to as "the temple." The sixth trustee, who was made a defendant in each suit, did not interfere in the conduct of the suits. It will be under; stood that when later in this judgment the defendants are referred to, the reference is to the defendants other than the sixth trustee.

(3.) IT cannot now be doubted that when a tenant of lands in India in a suit by his landlord to eject him from them, sets up a defence that he has a right of permanent tenancy in the lands, the onus of proving that he has such right is upon the tenant. In Secretary of State for India v. Luchmeswar Singh L.R. 16 I.A. 6 it was held that the onus of proving that they had a permanent right of occupancy in lands was upon the defendants, who alleged it as a defence to a suit by their landlord to eject them, and that proof of long occupation at a fixed rent did not satisfy that onus; and in Seturatnam Aiyar v. Venkatachala Gounden L.R. 47 I.A. 76, in a suit by landlords for the ejectment of the defendants from lands in a ryotwari district in Madras, the giving of notice to quit not being disputed, it was held that the onus of proving that the defendants had rights of permanent occupancy was upon them.