SRI MAHANT PRAYAG DOSS JEEVARU Vs. ABBUPILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This plaintiff is the appellant in all these second appeals. He filed five suits in the Court of the Deputy Collector of Trivellore under Section 77 of the Madras Estates Land Act, I of 1908, to recover rent due. The defendants in some of the suits pleaded that they were bound to pay only a small amount as jodi and road ces, and that they were not bound to pay the ayan thirva claimed by the plaintiff, and that the suits to recover the ayan thirva were not maintainable. The defendants in the other suits pleaded that they had been enjoying the lands as sagubadi manyam for generations, free of thirva as inam, and that the claim made now for the first time that they were bound to pay ayan thirva was unsustainable.

(2.) Both the lower Courts dismissed the suits, and the plaintiff has preferred the second appeals. It was explained that the suit lands were situated within the zemindari of Kalahasty, that the villages were purchased by the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff stands in the position of the zemindar. It is admitted that the lands concerned in three of the suits are sagubadi inams, in the fourth vinayaka inam, and in the fifth valluva or astrologer inam. The Deputy Collector who tried these suits observed as follows in his judgment in S.S. No. 628 of 1922 (S.A. No. 1880 of 1925); "It is admitted that no original grant or other fact is available as regards the genesis or nature of inam and that for over 40 years (to the knowledge of the D. W. No. 1) only a jodi is being paid to the zemindar." Again in para. 5 it is stated that "the suit land is sagubadi inam and no evidence has been adduced that it ever paid full assessment. The available evidence is that it has always been paying only a small jodi of Rs. 2." Some documents relating to sagubadi inams in other villages were produced by the plaintiff. With reference to the same, this is what the Deputy Collector stated in para. 3 of his Judgment: "none of these documents relates to the inam in question and the nature of the sagubadi inams in other villages does not appear to be uniform." After noticing the difference in the various documents filed by the plaintiff, the learned Deputy Collector concluded para. 3 of his judgment as follows: "The plaintiff's Vakil admitted as stated by P. W. No. 3 that the inam was for the encouragement, and spread of cultivation. It is admitted also that no such service is done or is necessary under modern conditions. The inference, therefore, is that the inam is a personal inam granted for past services. In that case, its resumption by the proprietor would be unauthorised." On appeal the learned District Judge of Chingleput, found that these inams were very old ones and that it was not disputed before him by the plaintiff that in one case the defendants were in possession free of rent, and in the other cases on favourable rent, ever since the grant of these inams some generations ago. After referring to the fact that no deed of grant had been produced in two of the cases of sagubadi inams, and that according to fix. I produced in the third suit the inamdar was "given a portion of land free of rent and that he should see that no land in the village was left waste", he proceeded to discuss the question that the kararnamas relating to the other villages could not in the circumstances be of any real help in these cases; he held that the burden of proving an inam to be resumable rests upon the persons who assert it. He observed as follows: "Three of the inams are sagubadi inams which were granted to the original inamdars on condition that they should keep all the lands of the village cultivated. These services have long ceased to be performed for the simple reason that there is little or no cultivable land yet remaining to be cultivated." He came to the conclusion that the land was granted, and that it was a "grant burdened. with sagubadi service" and that the terms of the grant had not been violated. He further came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had not proved his right to resume the sagubadi inams, and dismissed the three appeals relating to the sagubadi inams.

(3.) It was contended before me by the appellant's learned Advocate that the services in these three cases are personal to the zemindar and not public services, and that it was open to the zemindar to resume the inams and to levy full or ayan thirva.