1. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the plaintiff an agraharamdar should have sued to eject his tenants, the defendants, in a Revenue
Court, not before the District Munsif, on the ground that the suit village is an estate. The Appeal has been argued on the grounds that (1) burden of
proof regarding the character of the suit village was imposed on the plaintiff wrongly (2) there was, in any case, a failure to consider material
evidence.
2. The plaintiff does not rely on Section 8, Estates Land Act; and the question therefore is only whether this village is an estate within the meaning
of Section 3(2)(d); that is whether (1) the land revenue alone has been granted in inam (2) the grantee was a person not owning the kudivaram.
Now if the nature of his tenure were under consideration with direct reference only to his right to sue in ejectment, there is no doubt that the
authorities cited by the lower court would have been in point and its conclusion correct. But the dispute at present is as to jurisdiction, and as to it
the first rule is that the party seeking to oust the jurisdiction of the ordinary civil courts must '' establish his right to do so. This is recognised in
Indety Chinna Nagadu v. Potukanchi Venkata Subbaya (1910) M.W.N. 639 a case closely resembling the present and Tadikonda Buchi
Virabhadrayya Iyyavaru and Others Vs. Sonti Venkanna alias Venkata Ramudu and Others, . This rule is founded on clear and general
considerations and distinct reason must be required to justify departure from it. Of course, as observed in the second decision referred to an
anomaly seems apparently to exist in the onus being placed on different parties in the same suit for the purpose of deciding the question of
Jurisdiction and for deciding the question If the landlord''s right to eject. And this led one of the learned Judges in Adusumalli Suryanarayana v.
Atchuta Potanna (1913) 26 M.L.J. 99 to describe this distinction as "" a little too fine and far-fetched,"" whilst the other though it necessary to
explain it. In doing so he first, as we understand him, accepted the validity of the general rule, as above stated; but he then referred to the
presumption "" which courts have recognised about grants from the Crown being grants of the revenue only "" as sufficient to turn the scale in the
defendant''s favour in the absence of other grounds for an affirmative conclusion. if this means only that proof or an admission of the Inam character
of the village raises a presumption that the first requirement of Section 3(2)(d) has been complied with, i.e., that the grant was of the land revenue
alone, it may be accepted. And it is probable that this interpretation is correct, since such a presumption was a sufficient ground of decision in the
case then under disposal, one in which plaintiff relied only on pleas that his grant included both Melwaram and Kudivaram or in the alternative that
he had subsequently acquired the latter. These alternatives alone were considered in Upadrasta Venkata Sastrulu Vs. Divi Sitaramudu and Others,
and only the second of them in Ponnusamy Padayachi and Another Vs. Karuppudayan and Others, the judgment of Miller J. stating expressly that
the first of them as well as the alternative relied on in the, present case, the plaintiff''s ownership of the Kudivaram prior to the grant, were
negatived by the circumstances. All these cases in fact differed from the present, because the question in them was only of the extent of the grant or
the plaintiff''s subsequent acquisition of the Kudivaram, not of his ownership at the date of the grant regarding which plaintiff here admits nothing,
arguing that it is for the defendants to prove that it was not his.
3. The reply attempted to this argument is that the point is covered by a presumption, which must be drawn in the defendant''s favour. But it has
not been shown how such a presumption can be justified on its merits or supported by authority. On the merits it is not clear that there is any
necessary or probale connection between the grant of an, agraharam and the grantee''s possession prior to it of any right in the land; and it is
contended that the reasons against presuming a grant of the Kudivaram to non-resident Brahmins are valid also against a presumption that they did
not own the Kudivaram at its date; the answer is ""that in the present case the non-residence of the plaintiffs ancestor, the grantee, has yet to be
proved and that, when the defendants have proved it, it will no doubt afford a ground of decision. As regards authority no recognition of the
presumption proposed is to be found or is to beexpected in the majority of the cases already referred to, since it was unnecessary for their
decision. On the other hand the learned Judges responsible for Veerabadrayya v. Sonti Venkanah (1918) 24 M.L.J 659 said "" It is not easy to
hold that such a presumption is justifiable."" And its legitimacy was negatived directly in Indety Chinna Nagadu v. Potu Kanchi Venkatasubbaya
1910 M.W.N. 689. Adequate reason for dissent from these two decisions has not been shown. The conclusion entailed is in accordance with
Indety Chinna Nagadu v. Potu Kanchi Subbiah 1910 M.W.N. 689 that the Lower Court erred in imposing the burden of proof on the plaintiff in
respect of the second question arising u/s 3(2)(d), that relating to the ownership of the Kudivaram at the date of the grant of the inam.
4. The Lower Court''s decision must therefore be set aside. It must re-admit the appeal and dispose of it in the light of the foregoing. Provision for
costs in this Court will be made in its final decree in accordance with the result. In these circumstances it is unnecessary to deal with the other
ground argued in this Court, that material evidence was not considered.
