AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 101 words
1.
The question whether the defendant has occupancy right is one of fact. The judge is not right in saying that 25 years'' possession would by itself
confer occupancy right on the defendant but it is good evidence of such right. Possibly this was all that the Judge meant. The land being an Inam
the presumption also is that the Kudivaram was not vested in the plaintiff. The defendant''s written statement cannot be said to contain any
admission that his claim of occupancy right was only under an express grant. We must accept the Judge''s finding and dismiss the second appeal.