SECRETARY OF STATE Vs. INDOORAI BHAURAI DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This litigation arises out of certain allowances that for many years were paid by the inamdar plaintiffs for the benefit of certain religious institutions and ceremonies, and for food and liquor to villagers on special occasions. The allowances are in six inam villages in the Panch Mahals district. Three out of these, by name Ranipur, Pavdi, and Jetpur, are the subject-matter of the suit, which is before us in First Appeal No, 44 of 1924. The fourth village is that of Karamba, which is the subject-matter of the suit in R.A. No. 43 of 1924. The other two villages are Sompoi and Prathampur, which are the subject-matter of the suit in F.A. No. 45 of 1924. All these three suits, which were heard by the Joint Judge, Ahmedabad, involve the same questions, and our decision can be given in regard to all these appeals in one judgment.

(2.) The main facts are that these allowances were directly paid by the inamdars in question, but that in 1897 the Government passed a resolution, ordering that this practice should be stopped and that these amounts should be paid to Government. In consequence, certain notices were sent to these inamdars ordering them to refund amounts that were due for years subsequent to 1915. These suits were brought to obtain declarations and injunctions, which would prevent the Collector giving effect to those orders. The contention of Government is that these allowances were deducted from the amount of assessment that was taken into consideration for fixing the "summary settlement" dues from the inamdars; that this was done because these allowances were in respect of what is known as kadim haks, that is to say, grants made prior to the grant of the village in favour of the inamdars, and independently of them, by the former Government ; and that, under the express terms of the settlements contained in the sanads, that were subsequently issued, these cash allowances are subject to the orders of Government, so that the orders of 1897 are legal.

(3.) The contention of the plaintiffs-respondents in these appeals is that these allowances were not Kadim, but merely village expenses which do not fall under the terms of the Sanad as to Kadim halts. A further contention is that the Sanads were not accepted by the then inamdars and are not binding upon the plaintiffs. The Joint Judge has substantially accepted the plaintiff's contentions. He has held in paragraphs 17 and 24 of his judgment that the sanads were not accepted by the inamdars and cannot properly be the basis of a contract between the Government and them. He has further held that the Settlement and the Alienation Registers do not show that the alienations in question were kadim haks. Consequently, ho has held that Government have no right to recover anything on account of these allowances, and has granted the declarations and injunctions sought by the plaintiffs.