1. The plaintiff, who is one of the co-sharers in the village, brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen-for demolition of certain constructions made by the defendants on parti land. The defendants contended that they had been in possession of this land for a long time, that they had their cattle troughs, sugar-pressing mill and a shed for storing sugar-cane juice and keeping cattle on the land and that they had re built the shad which they had there. The Court of first, instance found in favour of the defendants and dismissed the suit, and this decree has been affirmed by the lower Appeallate Court. In my judgment on the findings of both the Courts below, the decision of the lower Appellate Court is right. It has been found that the house of the defendants, who are tenants in the village, is at a short distance from the site in dispute, that they have been in possession of this site for upwards of 12 years and have had their cattle troughs, cattle-shed and sugar-cane press there, and that all that they have how done is to build a, house for the stalling of cattle and storing of the implements of husbandry.
2. The-learned Judge from all these circumstances drew the inference that the land had been given to the defendants as a part of their holding, and that they were entitled to occupy the land so long as their holding existed. In my opinion, the inference which the learned Judge drew from the facts is a reasonable inference. Where a tenant has been in possession of a piece of land for purposes ancillary to the purposes of his agricultural holding, the fair presumption is that the land was given to him for the purposes last mentioned. There was no question of adverse possession in this case. Under the circumstances found, the plaintiff was not entitled to eject the defendants from the land in suit and his suit was rightly dismissed. I dismiss the appeal with costs.
3. Appeal dismissed.