KARRI PEDDI REDDY; DORYA MAHALAKSHMI GADU; KARRI SATYANARAYANA, MINOR BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN, RAMANNA; SATIRAZU PATTABHI RAMACHANDRA RAJU Vs. RECEIVER OF NIDADAVOLE AND MEDUR ESTATES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decision of the District Judge is right on the materials placed before him. We feel very little doubt that the karnam is being paid a salary in lieu of the rusums which he received from the ryots in former years. However, as the evidence that the karnam is being paid a salary by Government has not been let in and as no notification has been proved to have been issued under Act II of 1894 in respect of the village, we are constrained to hold that the karnam is entitled to claim the rusum for the fasli in question. If the defendant is able to produce the notification extending Act II of 1894 to the village in question, this judgment will not affect him in subsequent years.

(2.) On the question whether the rusum is not payable because it is not a payment for agricultural purposes, it is enough to say that under Section 51, fees paid with rent can be included in the palta and that Section 3(II) makes it clear that such fees are included in the term rent" for the purpose of Section 148 of the Estates Land Act.

(3.) We dismiss the second appeals.