SECRETARY OF STATE Vs. ABDUL RAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs brought this suit for possession of two villages in the Chittoor District and for other reliefs against the Secretary of State for India-in-Council. The Subordinate Judge of Chittoor has granted the plaintiffs a decree for possession with mesne profits. The defendant has preferred this appeal against plaintiffs 1 and 4.

(2.) One Mahomed Moosa was granted a pension of 60 pagodas a month for the term of his life by the East India Company in 1800 on the recommendation of Col. Alexander Read, Superintendent of Baramahal and Salem. In 1821 at the request of Mahomed Moosa seven villages were granted to him in jaghir in lieu of two-thirds of his pension to enure for three successive lives. In 1827 Mahomed Moosa applied to Government for the grant of another village in place of six of the seven villages which he could not conveniently manage and the Bast India Company granted him Vellakkuttai and allowed him to retain Gollankuttai. After his death disputes arose as to the succession and the Government acting upon the opinion of the Court of Sadar Amin based upon a fatwa or opinion of the Khazi allowed the sons and daughters of Mahomed Moosa and their children to enjoy the income of the two villages but decided that the shares of any of the children of Mahomed Moosa dying without issue should lapse to the Government and be added to the jodi of Rs. 10 fixed on the two villages. This practice was followed from 1834 down to fasli 1321 (1911). In Fasli 1321 arrears to the extent of Rs. 1,200 odd were due to Government and to realize the arrears the villages were attached by the revenue authorities. On 30 November 1912 a notice Ex. E was given by the Collector to the descendants of Mahomed Moosa then living: that the Vellakuttai Jaghir will be resumed, fully assessed and incorporated with Ayan land if all the dues payable to Government are not paid within one month from the date of this notice.

(3.) The dues not having been paid, Vellakuttai Jaghir was resumed by the Government by notice Ex. K dated 27 February 1913. Apparently the Government instead of following out the procedure of the Revenue Recovery Act were led to take such a drastic step by the repeated failure of the heirs of the grantee to pay their dues. The plaintiffs filed the suit on 27 April 1921.