1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of landbrought by the plaintiffs-respondents on the allegation that the defendantshave taken wrongful possession of the same. The defence was that the land insuit had not been wrongfully taken possession of by the defendants, but waspart and parcel of their ancestral holding under the plaintiffs. The firstCourt, whilst entertaining grave doubts about the title of the defendants,dismissed the suit, because, in its judgment, the plaintiffs were not able toshow that they had been dispossessed as alleged. On appeal by the plaintiffs,the lower appellate Court has reversed the decision of the first Court andgiven the plaintiffs a decree, holding that the defendants failed to make outany title as tenants to the land in dispute, and that the plaintiffs, as theadmitted landlords, were, therefore,, entitled to possession. On second appeal,it is contended that the lower appellate Court is wrong in throwing upon thedefendants the burden of proving their title, when it was admitted by theplaintiffs that the defendants were their tenants in respect of some land intheir zamindari.; and in support of this contention, the case of Rhidoy KristoMistri v. Nobin Chunder Sen 12 C.L.R. 457, is cited. We do not think there isany force in the contention of the appellants. The case cited is clearlydistinguishable from the present. There the plaintiff sued to recover khaspossession of some land, which he alleged was outside the kowla or tenure heldby the defendant, and which the defendant had encroached upon by extending theboundary of his howla. In the present case, there is no admission by theplaintiffs that the lands in suit are contiguous to the admitted holding of thedefendants, or that they have come to the possession of the defendants byencroachment. The mere fact that the defendants hold some lands as tenantsunder the plaintiffs, would not be sufficient to throw upon the plaintiffs theburden of showing that in respect of any other land in the zamindari which thedefendants may be found to be in possession of, they have no right as tenants.The burden of proof in a case like this lies upon the defendants, and this viewis quite in accordance with the rule laid down by this Court in several casesof which we need only refer to two, namely, Raj Kishen Mookerjee v. PeareeMohun Mookerjee 20 W.R. 421 and Batai Ahir v. Bhuggobutty Koer 11 C.L.R. 476.We may observe that in this case both parties went into evidence, and the lowerappellate Court has distinctly found that the defendants have failed to makeout any right to the land in dispute That being so, and the plaintiffs beingthe admitted proprietors of the estate in which the land in dispute is situate,the plaintiffs would be entitled to a decree for possession, unless it is shownthat not the plaintiffs but other persons are entitled to such possession. Thathas not been shown nor suggested in this case; and accordingly we think thatthe decree given by the lower appellate Court is right and must be affirmed withcosts.

.

Sheodeni Roy vs.Chatoorbhuj Roy (29.01.1894 - CALHC)