(BOBBILI) POLADARI GADU Vs. RAJAH OF VIZIANAGARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of one of several suits (L.S. 223 of 1924) instituted by the Rajah of Vizianagaram for the recovery of arrears of rent with interest due by the defendants on certain "kattukaluva service" inam lands resumed by the proprietor for faslis 1331, 1332 and 1333. The defendants had executed relinquishment deeds and kadapas at the time of resumption with respect to these lands in favour of the zamindar. Their main contentions are two fold : (1) that the kadapas and relinquishment deeds are not valid and binding as they are vitiated by misrepresentation, coercion, etc.; (2) that the services to be rendered by the ryots with respect to these lands are of a public nature and the lands are therefore not resumable by the zamindar and therefore resumption is invalid. On the first point both the Courts held that the relinquishment deeds and kadapas are not vitiated by misrepresentation, coercion, fraud, etc; But the learned District Judge in discussing this question expressed the opinion that he has no doubt that the knowledge of the elaborate recitals of the relinquishment deeds cannot be imputed to the executants, especially when it is remembered that the relinquishment deeds were written from a draft that was prepared from similar documents : see para. 5 of the appellate judgment.

(2.) On the second point the lower appellate Court differing from the first Court held that the right of resumption of the lands lay with the zamindar.

(3.) Both the findings of the appellate Court are controverted before me by the appellant's learned Counsel. The finding on the first point is a finding of fact and it has to be accepted in second appeal. As regards the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge, that the right of resumption is in the zamindar, I am not satisfied that his view is right. His reasoning on the point does not appear to be consistent and satisfactory. There is no evidence to show that the suit lands were granted subsequent to the permanent settlement. It is not proved that the assessment of the lands was included in the assets of the zamindari at the time of the permanent settlement for fixing the peishcush. The District Judge's opinion seems to be - and in this I think he is right-that the services are of a "public nature" and not personal to the zamindar. It is admitted that the ryots did not refuse to render the services at any time. The services consist in repairing the village water channels and as such are rendered to the village community. It may be that the kothwal, an estate official, goes with the ryots when they repair the channels. But, as pointed out by the learned Judge himself, normally the zamindar is not under any obligation to maintain the minor village channels. The learned District Judge gives some weight to the admission in the relinquishment deeds that the zamindar had to spend moneys on the repair of the village channels as the inam-holders were unable to do the repairs themselves. But there is no evidence in support of the truth of this admission, As the first Court points out: Not even one witness says this. Nor is a single document produced to prove it.