STATE Vs. GANAPATHY VALIYARAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise from the judgment and decree dated 13th April 1943 (31 Meenom 1118) of the District Court of Mavelikara in O.S. 97 of 1116. That suit was originally instituted before the Kottayam District Court as O.S. No. 112 of 1097 but when a District Court was established at Mavelikara it was transferred to the new court as the properties involved in the suit came within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court. The Raja of Idappalli (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) brought the said suit for a declaration that the properties described in schedule A and B annexed to the plaint formed part of his Edavaga or freehold tracts, that they were exempt from payment of land revenue to Government, and that the right to collect the tax of those properties from persons in possession thereof belonged to his Swaroopam. Reliefs ancillary or consequential thereto were also claimed in the plaint. The Government of Travancore represented by the Dewan of the State was impleaded as the first defendant and there were besides as many as 213 other defendants when the suit was first filed. The latter were said to be persons in possession as tenants under the plaintiffs Swaroopam. During the long course of years the suit was pending in the lower court, four successive Rajas of Idappalli died and the present plaintiff is the 5th person to come on the record as such. Pending suit several defendants also died and their respective legal heirs were all duly impleaded. The main, if not the sole, contesting defendant was the Government of Travancore. The circumstances which led up to the institution of the suit are as follows:-

(2.) Idappalli was a small State which became subject to Travancore in 1000 M.E. It is now one of the Edavagas recognised in the Government accounts. The Chief pays a subsidy to Government for Police protection, but he has no civil or criminal jurisdiction. The whole of the land revenue in the Edavaga goes to the Chief. The properties in suit are Cherickal lands and during the Cherickal Settlement operations, though the proprietory interest of the plaintiff over the properties in schedule A of the plaint was recognised by the Settlement authorities, they were registered only as plaintiffs jenmam lands and not as forming part of the Edavaga proper so as to exempt them from the incidents of Sirkar Tax. In the Cherickal Settlement it was further decided that the B Schedule properties did not belong to the plaintiff at all. These decisions were made during 1083 and 1084. The plaintiff preferred revision petitions against them, to the Settlement Central Office, but all those petitions were dismissed and when twelve years had almost elapsed since their dismissal the plaintiff instituted the suit giving rise to these appeals. The date of the dismissal of the revision petitions was 25.11.1085 and the suit was filed on 24.11.1097. Besides seeking a declaration that the right to collect tax in respect of the plaint properties belonged to the plaintiffs Swaroopam the plaintiff sought to recover from the Government of Travancore, the first defendant the tax collected by them during the twelve years preceeding the suit and also prayed for an injunction restraining them from collecting the tax of the said properties in future. According to the plaintiff his Swaroopam has been collecting the tax and varam dues from defendants 2 onwards and their predecessors-in-interest for the past several years; but after the Settlement decisions the first defendant Sirkar started collecting tax from them (the tenants). The case put forward in the plaint was that as the suit properties formed part of Idappalli Edavaga the Sovereign right of the State did not extend to the collection of tax of those properties and that the decisions of the Cherickal Settlement Officers were all wrong.

(3.) The first defendant Sirkar as also defendants 32, 96 and 150 filed written statements, but during the course of the suit the three latter named defendants withdrew from contest, leaving the Government of Travancore (hereinafter referred to as the Government) alone to defend the suit right up to the end. The Government contended inter alia that the decisions of the Cherickal Settlement Officers were correct and not liable to be called in question, that the plaintiff had no right to collect the tax of the A schedule properties, that the plaintiff had no interest whatever in the B schedule items and that the suit was barred by limitation.