SADASHIV ATMARAM INAMDAR Vs. ANNABHAT VENKANBHAT KAVATHEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 189-8-0 at the rate of Rs. 46-8-0 per year out of the revenue of the inam village of Kallol. The plaintiff in the plaint stated that he was in possession of all the lands belonging to Defendant No. 3, his adoptive father, except the revenue of the village of Kallol, which was payable to Defendant No. 3. The suit, as framed by him, clearly relates to a grant of land revenue. The defence was, that a certificate from the Collector under the Pensions Act was necessary as the suit amount included Mamul Judi and the amount collected from Kadim Inamdar.

(2.) The question, therefore, in this case is, whether a certificate is necessary under Section 4 of Act 23 of 1871. Both the Courts have decided against the plaintiff and have held that a certificate under the Pensions Act is necessary. From the pleadings it clearly appears to be a suit relating to a grant of land-revenue. The learned pleader for the appellant con-tends that he ought to be given an opportunity of proving that the grant related to the soil and was not merely a grant of land revenue. The Subordinate Judge says in his judgment: Plaintiff was given full opportunity to produce the Sanad which is the only guide to ascertain the nature of the grant and whether the certificate is necessary. Defendant contends that a portion of the grant at least consists of sums recovered from Kadim Inamdars. Plaintiff has not denied or challenged, that statement.

(3.) Ample opportunity was given to the plaintiff to prove that the grant was of the soil and was not a grant of land-revenue. It is clear that the suit relates to a grant of land-revenue, and the suit must fail because the plaintiff has not produced a certificate from the Collector The plaintiff was given an opportunity to produce the certificate; the Subordinate Judge kept the case pending till the end of the month to enable the plaintiff to produce the necessary certificate and on failure to produce the certificate the suit was dismissed. He has not yet produced the certificate from the Collector. We. therefore, think that the suit must fail for want of a certificate under Section 4 of the Pensions Act.