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 plaintiff''s inam were in a zamindari they could not be in a batter position as regards the right to eject the defendant than
the Zamindar who created the inam. If the inam were situated outside a zamindari 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) Mad. 269 has bean explained as based on
the particular facts of that case in Cheskati Zamindar v. Ranasooru Dhora ILR (1900) Mad. 318. 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.