RAMRAO HIJI Vs. DATTATRAYAKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I am asked to interpret the order of my brother Kotval, A.J.C. remanding the case as embodying a decision that long-continued possession and unifrom rent give rise to a presumption of permanency. On the other hand, the respondent's learned advocate contends that all that Kotval, A J. C, did was to indicate the possibility of a presumption being raised in the circumstances of the case and not that it actually arises on the facts found. I think the respondent's contention is sound. Since Kotval, A.J.C., appears to have asked the Court below to decide the second issue afresh there can be no doubt as to his intention' to leave the matter to the Courts below to decide in the manner they think best in the light of the presumption, if any, justifiable on the facts found. In the case which went to the Privy Council from the Madras High Court, and reported as Nainapillai Marakayar v. Ramanathan Chettiar A.I.R. 1924 P.C. 65, it was held that the mere circumstance of the uniformity of rent and long possession does not suffice to raise such a presumption. I am, therefore, constrained to hold that the Courts below have rightly decided the case. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.