AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 179 wordsWe are unable to uphold the decision of the District Judge. The plaintiffs are inamdars. They sue to eject the defendant, who and whose
predecessors have been in possession for about fifty years. The plaintiffs have given no evidence of a right to eject the defendant which the Judge is
inclined to accept. If the plaintiffs'' inam were in a zemindari they could not be in a better position as regards the right to eject the defendant than
the zemindar who created the inam. If the inam was situated outside a zemindari and was granted by Government there would be no presumption
in their favour that they were entitled to eject. The decision in Achayya v. Hanumantrayudu ILR (1891) M. 269 has been explained as based on
the particular facts of that case in Cheekati Zamindar v. Ramasooroo Dhore ILR (1899) M. 381. As the plaintiffs have failed to prove a right to
eject the defendant we must reverse the District Judge''s decree and restore that of the Munsif with costs here and in the lower appellate Court.