MAHARAJAH OF PITHAPURAM Vs. CITTOORI VENKATARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises in this Second Appeal is whether the respondent is entitled to enjoy land free of rent that was the subject of a pre-settlement grant. A few documents were filed in the case; and on this evidence the Subordinate Judge held that the respondent had not proved his claim. The suit, which was one for a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to enjoy the land free of rent and for a refund of rent already paid, was dismissed in toto. In appeal, the District Judge held that the documents proved that the plaintiff (respondent) possessed the rights which he claimed. He held that a declaration should be given, as there had been a continuing wrong in collecting the rent from the plaintiff but that he could obtain a refund of rent wrongly paid only for a period of six years prior to suit.

(2.) We know that from 1895 the land was described as Asalminaha Inam. Macleane defines this tenure thus: The term is therefore applied to rent free and other favourably assigned lands. Commonly used for unoccupied and unassessed land. The words used show that the land was excluded from the account of the total revenue. It is not denied that the use of this word is not altogether conclusive of the nature of the grant and would not exclude the possibility that the Zamindar had a right to impose rent later. The fact that the land was at one time described as a tope has led to the suggestion by the Zamindar's learned advocate that the land may have been granted originally to an ancestor or predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff, to encourage him to cultivate the tope If that is so, it is rather difficult to attach any importance to the subsequent description of that land as Darbar inam. This has given rise to another suggestion on behalf of the Zamindar that when the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff ceased to comply with the terms of the original grant, he was allowed to continue in enjoyment of the land free of rent on condition that he rendered service at darbars. There is no material on which a Court could uphold such a contention; and the learned District Judge before whom such argument was not put forward was certainly entitled to conclude that, whatever the rights of the plaintiff's predecessor might have been when the grant was made, those rights continued, unless the Zamindar was able to show that by some change in circumstances or on account of some infringement of the terms of the original grant, he became entitled to levy rent. Even as late as 1916, in Ex. P- 5, an extract from the Record of Rights Register maintained by the Registrar dated 11 May, 1913, the land was described as asalminaha inam.

(3.) The learned District Judge very rightly placed a great deal of reliance on Ex. P-4, the inam register prepared in 1916. The Inam Deputy Collector made his recommendation on 29th November, 1915; and during the course of his enquiries into the nature of the inam he stated in column 6 of the form: This is a personal inam held with grant. Gift deed is produced for inspection by the claimant of case No. 4. The garden finds mention in the bhuband of fasli 1207 (1797) as a deduction from the village gudicut as Ravu Venkayya Cocoanut garden 4 visams. This entry negatives the suggestion that this was a Darbar service inam. Unfortunately, that grant has not been produced, although a copy of it was tendered in the trial Court and rejected; but this entry proves that the title of the plaintiff lay in a personal grant. We must presume, since we know that no rent was paid from the time of the grant until recent years and there being no evidence to the contrary, that the plaintiff was entitled to continue to enjoy the land free of rent. It is no doubt true that column 22 of Ex. P-4 shows that rent in 1915 was being paid by the plaintiff or his predecessor-in-title to the Zamindar; but from when payment of rent was made, we do not know. Were it not for this entry, May be resumed and fully assessed as it is held subject to payment of rent to the zamindar. there would be every reason to believe that no rent was paid until 1915, when on the representations of the Zamindar that this was a service inam which he intended to resume, a full assessment was paid. It is unnecessary to discuss in detail the various documents referred to in the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge and dealt with rather sketchily by the learned District Judge in appeal; because those documents only show that the land was described as asalminaha from time to time, and that from 1905 onwards the inam was described as Darbar service inam. The conclusion arrived at by the learned District Judge that the inam was a presettlement inam on which no rent was payable by the plaintiff was certainly one possible on the facts, and since this is a second appeal, that finding has to be accepted.