1. The plaintiff in this case is the Mokhasadar of Viravalli in the old Zamindari of Nuzvid, and the suit is to eject certain ryots from the lands of which they are in occupation. The question for decision raised in the issues is whether the defendants have the right of occupancy in the lands. The District Munsif came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to eject the defendants. The Subordinate Judge arrived at a different conclusion. The first point raised in Second Appeal is that there is no presumption in cases like this that the occupying ryots have a permanent right in the lands in their possession. The argument is that the presumption that an inamdar has only a melvaram right applies only to the case of inams granted by a Zamindar, and chiefly to the cases of small plots of land which constitute minor inams. The finding in this case is that the Mokhasa was granted by a Zamindar of Nuzvid. The Inam Register has been brought to our notice. We are unable to say that the Subordinate Judge was wrong in saying that it was a Nuzvid Zamindar that granted the Mokhasa originally. But assuming that this was not the case we do not think that that would make any difference.
2. It is contended by Mr. Section Srinivasa Aiyangar the learned Vakil for the appellant, that the reason for presuming that an inamdar has only the Melvaram right as laid down in the cases is that Zamindars were only farmers of revenue, and that the Government did not grant to them absolutely the land included in their Zamindaries in consideration of the services which were usually rendered by them and that therefore a grant of an Inam by the Zamindar could not include the occupancy right in the land. In the case of grants made by Zamindars this would no doubt be the reason for holding that an Inam does not include the Kudivaram right in the land. When a grant is made by the Government the presumption still would be that it intended to grant only the right of the State in the land, which prima facie could only be the Melvaram interest or the right to land revenue. An Inam no doubt may be granted to a person in occupation of the land. But the Inam itself would still be only the Melvaram right though in consequence of the grant the Melvaram and the Kudivaram rights might become vested in the same person. Where the Inamdar is not the person in possession and he seeks to eject the occupant, it would lie on him to show that both the Melvaram and Kudivaram rights are vested in him on the ground that he was in occupation when the inam was granted. We cannot uphold the contention that the presumption that the Melvaram right alone was granted would not apply to grants made by the Government. The presumption is that the Government did not intend to deal with the rights of the occupants and that they intended to grant only the right of the State in the land. Such right is ordinarily only the right to the land revenue.
3. It might no doubt be otherwise in the case of waste lands. But it lies on the Inamdar to show that the lands were waste at the time of the grant before he can ask the Court to hold that the Inam consisted of the entire right in the property. We must therefore hold that the Subordinate Judge was right in throwing on the plaintiff the onus of proving his right to eject the defendants. And, in fact it was conceded before the Subordinate Judge that the plaintiff must bear the onus of proof in the case.
* * * *
4. The Respondents have presented a memorandum of objections objecting to the decree in the plaintiff's favor for rent for 5 years. The suit was instituted before the Estates Land Act came into force and admittedly there was no exchange of pattahs and Muchilikas or a tender of patta to the defendants. The suit is therefore clearly unsustainable. The decree for rent must therefore be set aside. The suit must be dismissed with costs in its entirety; and the respondents are entitled to their costs throughout on the memorandum of objections.