GOPISETTI VEERASWAMI Vs. SAGIRAJU SEETHARAMA KANTAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These suits were brought by certain mokhasadars in the Kistna District to eject their tenants; and the first question that came up for decision at the trial was whether the villages in question were portions of an estate within the definition of the Madras Estates Land Act. under Section 3 of that Act an "estate" means "consisting of one or more villages of any of the estates specified in Clause (a) which is held on a permanent under-tenure ". The three villages concerned in this suit, Goteru, Surampudi and Komara-varam are admittedly situated within the ambit of the Zemin-dari of Nuzvid. They were in existence before the Permanent Settlement of 1802. The District Munsif was of opinion that they were even more ancient than the zemindari in which they are situated. The question whether they are held on a permanent under-tenure from the Zemindar must depend on whether the revenue from these mokhasas was taken into consideration in computing the assets of the Zemindari at the time of the Permanent Settlement. As the question of the Civil Court's jurisdiction over these suits has been raised, we have no alternative but to decide it in these proceedings even though the question whether the land was or was not excluded from the assets of the Zemindari may resemble a question of fact. No Court can confer jurisdiction on itself by wrongly deciding facts necessary to be proved to determine a question of jurisdiction.

(2.) A similar question came up for decision in Lakshminara-simham V/s. Veerabhadrudu (1923) 19 L W 671, and it was decided therein that certain other mokhasas situated in the same Zemindari of Nuzvid were part of an estate as denned in Section 3, (e) of the Madras Estates Land Act and that a suit by a landholder mokhasadar against his tenants would lie. only in a Revenue Court. We are informed that that decision is at present under appeal to His Majesty in Council. In any case the question has to be freshly decided in these appeals upon the records available and on the evidence taken at the trial.

(3.) I may first refer to the Fifth Report from the Select Committee on the Affairs of the East India Company which in Appendix No. 18 contains the instructions issued in 1799 to Collectors in the Presidency of Fort St. George for the permanent settlement which was carried out in 1802. The Government set out the object of making the settlement as constituting the Zemindars proprietors of their respective zernindaries as estates, fixing the jumma or land tax in perpetuity, abolishing all uncertainty of the amount and all disorder and confusion in the collections, removing opportunities for exaction and collusion and simplifying intricacies in the details of the revenue business. The Government state in paragraph 17 that they have resolved to adopt statements of the Circuit Committee as the general standard and in other paragraphs they announce their intention of fixing the assessment, exclusive and independent of all duties and taxes and other collections known as "Sayer", including Abkan or tax on the sale of intoxicating liquor, and excluding the salt revenue and independently of all existing alienated lands, whether exempt from the payment of public revenue, with or without due authority (the village maniams, or land held by public and private servants in lieu of wages, excepted). Then in paragraph 16 they state: All allowances of cauzees and Government revenue officers (curnums excepted) heretofore paid by landholders, as well as any public pensions hitherto paid through the landholders, are to be added to the amount of jumma, and to be provided for by Government, under prescribed regulations.