1. We think that the decree of the District Judge is right. The question was whether the plaintiff was entitled to eject the defendants. In the case of two of the plots of land it appears that a relinquishment of the Kudivaram right was given to the Zamindar some 20 years ago by the then occupying royts and that a year or two afterwards that right was granted to the 1st defendant ; and the lands were entered with his other lands in his ordinary Seri puttah. In the case of the other plots of land there was nothing to show that the Kudivaram right had ever vested in the Zamindar. As regards these latter lands it is evident that the principle of Venkatanarasimha Naidu v. Dandamudi Kotayya I.L.R. 20 M. 318 applies, while in the case of the two former plots of land it was for the Zemindar to show that he made the grant under circumstances or on conditions which entitled him to eject the defendants at the end of any year. We think that the entry of the lands in the same puttah as the lands from time immemorial in the enjoyment of the ryot without any condition that they were held on a different tenure leads to a reasonable inference that they were to be held on the same tenure, i.e., with permanent occupancy rights, It was, no doubt, open to the Zemindar to rebut this presumption but he has not done so. We think that in all the circumstances the Judge was right in applying the rule laid down in Chekati Zemindar v. Ranasoru Dhora I.L.R. 23 M. 299 and we dismiss the second appeal with costs.