1. This appeal is concluded by a finding of fact. The plaintiffs-respondents sued the defendants-appellants for a declaration that the plots specified at the foot of the plaint were in possession of the plaintiffs in the year 1334-F, and that the defendants were not tenants in respect of those plots. The plaintiffs are admittedly the owners to the land in dispute. They alleged that they had themselves cultivated the land in 1334-F. but the patwari fraudulently entered the names of the defendants as tenants of the aforesaid plots. Proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C., were taken by the plaintiffs. The criminal Court attached the land pending the dispute between the parties being settled by a competent Court. The plaintiffs then instituted the suit which has given rise to this appeal.
2. The main question in the case was whether the defendants were tenants occupying the land in dispute on behalf of the plaintiffs, or whether it was the khudkasht of the plaintiffs in 1334-F. as alleged by them. The trial Court remitted an issue for determination by the Revenue Court. The issue was 'Whether the defendants were tenants of the land in dispute?' The Assistant Collector held that they were tenants as alleged by them. The Munsif was bound by the finding of the Assistant' Collector and had to dismiss the suit holding that the defendants were tenants. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge, who was at liberty to arrive at his own finding on the issue which had been decided by the Revenue Court, held that the defendants were never the tenants of the land in dispute, and that it was through fraud practised by the patwari that the defendants' names were entered in the Revenue Records and payment of rent by them was entered in his siaha. On that finding the plaintiffs' suit was decreed.
3. It is contended on behalf of the defendants that the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge is vitiated by an error of law in so far that the onus was thrown on the defendants to establish their tenancy. The learned Subordinate Judge has discussed the question of burden of proof at considerable length and held that the burden lay on the defendants and that in any case parties having gone to trial on definite issues and led such evidence as they had to adduce, the question of onus was immaterial. We are clearly of opinion that the learned Subordinate Judge was right in the view he took on the question of onus. The learned advocate for the defendants conceded that the (sic) onus ordinarily lies on the tenant where the existence of tenancy is in dispute. He sought to draw distinction between cases in which that rule holds good and the present case. We do not think that these is sub (sic) difference. In any case the issue framed by the civil Court and remitted to the Revenue Court was cast in a form which clearly indicated that the burden was thrown on the defendants. No objection was then taken. The defendants led evidence before the assistant Collector assuming the en-tire onus upon themselves. Both parties adduced all. the evidence at their disposal, and we are of opinion that the question of onus at this stage is purely academic, and the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge, who dealt with the case as a whole, is not vitiated by any error of law. No other valid criticism has been put forward by the learned advocate for the appellants in impugning the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge. In this view no other point can arise in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed with costs.