JUDGMENT
1. This appeal relates to the resumption of service inams, which were resumed in Fasli 1309 by Government (1st defendant), but this resumption was cancelled and 1st defendant exonerated from the suit. The Zamindar’s claim in his plaint was to eject the other defendants, the inamdars, but the learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit on the ground that plaintiff had failed to prove that the inam granted consisted of both kudivaram and melvarani. In coming to this conclusion he has relied on a presumption that an inam grant by a zamindar is a grant of the melvaram only. It has now been decided by the Privy Council in Suryanarayana v. Patanna (1919) I.L.R. 43 M. 166 : 37 M.L.J. 42 and Venkata Sastrulu v. Seetharamudu (1918) I.L.R. 41 M. 1132 : 36 M.L.J. 585, no such presumption exists, but the decision may be supported on other grounds.
2. Before dealing with the evidence in the case it was argued that inasmuch as a zamindar can be the owner of both varams, and as a landlord must be deemed to lease the whole of his interest in his land, therefore the lease or grant in this case must have included both varams. This is tantamount to arguing that there is a presumption that inam grants by a zamindar are grants of both varams, but the argument (sic) not framed in this way, as such a presumption has been expressly negatived by the Privy Council in Sivaprakasa Pandara Sannadhi v. Veerama Reddy (1922) I.L.R. 45 M. 586: 42 M.L.J. 640. We must therefore determine the nature of the grant from the evidence. Inasmuch as plaintiff sues in ejectment he is bound to prove that he has a right to eject and he can do that only by proving that he granted the land itself and is now entitled to resume it.
3. The original grant, having been made nearly 200 years ago, is not available, and the only evidence adduced by plaintiff is the fact that a similar inam was resumed in 1869-70, and was subsequently treated as his own private land. The fact that no one disputed the Zamindar’s claim then cannot be evidence against defendants. On the other hand there is evidence that the Zamindar was unable effectively to resume a similar inam at a later date. Defendants have also filed documents from 1883 onwards showing that they dealt with the land as their own. We must therefore hold that plaintiff has failed to prove his right to eject and consequently the lower Court’s decree is right.
4. The lower Court has found, and in our opinion rightly found that plaintiff is entitled to resume these inams, and it is now contended that the decree should have contained a declaration to that effect. There was no such prayer in the plaint, but as an issue had been framed on the point we allow plaintiff’s request and modify the decree by inserting such a declaration. In other respects the appeal is dismissed.
5. A number of defendants have compromised this appeal and decree will be passed accordingly and sanction to compromise on behalf of minors is also asked for. In view of our finding, such sanction cannot be given.