BASIRUDDIN SARKAR Vs. SAHEBULLA PRAMANIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff who had been unsuccessful in an action in ejectment in both the Courts below has preferred this second appeal. The plaintiff's case was that he was a ryot and the defendants are under-ryots, and he sued; to eject the defendants on service of notices to quit in compliance with the provision of Section 49, Clause (b), Bengal Tenancy Act.

(2.) Two questions have been raised on behalf of the appellant, of which the first relates to the onus of proof. The Subordinate Judge has held that it was for the plaintiff to prove that the defendants were under-ryots and that the plaintiff has failed to discharge this burden. It is said that it was for the defendants to prove that their status was higher than what the plaintiff alleged.

(3.) In support of the contention aforesaid reliance has been placed upon the principles underlying the decisions of the Judicial Committee in the cases of Sethuratnam Iyar v. Venkatachala Goundan A.I.R. 1920 P.C. 67 and Nainapillai Marakayar V/s. Ramanathan Chettiar A.I.R. 1924 P.C. 65 and the line of cases in which it has been held that where a defendant alleges that he has a permanent right to remain on the plaintiff's land it is for him to prove it, the case of Nubo Coomar Ghose V/s. Oozir Shikdar 23 W.R. 238 and also the decision of this Court in the case of Paran Chandra Karmokar V/s. Khazez Mandal [1917] 42 I.C. 262 which is directly in point and in appellant's favour.