T VENKATASUBBA RAO Vs. BSIVAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case, so far as they are relevant to the present second appeal, are very simple. The plaintiff is the proprietor of Devabhumi village. His suit is for possession of the suit lands and for arrears of rent. He alleged that the lands formed the emoluments of a barber's service inam, that the Government resumed the inam in 1916, and granted him a patta and that when the defendant refused to pay the rent demanded of him he gave him a notice to quit and filed this suit. The defendant, amongst other things, contended that the suit lands did not form part of the barber's service inam and that the plaintiff had on no account any right to eject him. Various issues were raised in the case but the main issue was: Whether the plaintiff has the right to eject the defendant.

(2.) The District Munsif found that the lands formed part of the barber's service inam and that the plaintiff proved his right to eject the defendant. His conclusion on the latter point was mainly based on the ground that in the case of inam grants, the grant was of both the varams and that the defendant had adduced no evidence to show that the inam consisted only of the melvaram right. He further supported his conclusion by referring to the fact that the Government also appeared to have dealt with the land as inam in its resumption proceedings. He there fore came to the conclusion that the Government has a right to resume the grant and give patta to the plaintiff. A decree was, therefore, given in plaintiff's favour.

(3.) In appeal the learned Subordinate Judge held that in law there is no presumption that an inam grant is a grant of both the varams, that each case has to be judged on its merits and that in this case it was not proved by the plaintiff that the original grant was by one who owned the kudivaram right and that the kudivaram right was included in the grant. He, therefore, held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree. The learned Subordinate Judge also held that the Government's resumption proceedings will not in any way bind the defendant. The District Munsif's decree so far as it related to the recovery of possession was, therefore, reversed.