1. The suit is for resumption of certain lands held by the defendants on Gadaba service. The defendants at first denied the service but afterwards pleaded that the grant was burdened with service.
2. The grant was subsequent to the permanent settlement. The burden is on the defendants to show in such a case that the grant was not in lieu of service: See Sanyasi v. Salur Zamindar 7 M. 268; Mahadevi v. Vikrama Razu 14 M. 365; Sri Rajah Sobbanadri Appa Rao Bahadur v. Sri Rajah Venkatanarasimha Appa Rao Bahadur 20 M. 403.
3. The defendants have adduced no evidence to rebut the presumption. The mere length of enjoyment (40 years) and the uniform Kathubadi are insufficient to rebut the presumption.
4. The Subordinate Judge holds, and we think rightly, that if the burden be upon the defendant he has not discharged it. We must reverse the decrees of both the lower Courts and decree possession of land sued for with costs throughout.
5. The amount of profits claimed is not disputed; the plaintiff will also have a decree for Rs. 46 with interest at 6 per cent, from the date of plaint to the date of realisation.