RAGHO RAVJI BHARDE Vs. GOPAL JANARDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question in this appeal is, whether the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to a refund of a certain amount which he paid to the defendants-respondents in respect of the latter's one-sixth share of the revenue of the sharkati inam jahagir of Varkhade in the Shevgaon Taluka in the Ahmed nagar District. Both the lower Courts held that the plaintiff's claim was res judicata and that he was not entitled to a refund nor to the declaration he sought of his non-liability for any amount suspended or remitted for subsequent years.

(2.) The village in question, as stated above, is a dumala sharkati inam village, that is to say, Government are entitled to half the assessment and the Jahagirdar to the other half. The plaintiff-appellant is the managing Jahagirdar and the defendants-respondents have a one-sixth share in the Jahagir. The assessment is made in a Tharavband and is recovered by Government and the inamdar's one- half is subsequently paid to the managing Jahagirdar the appellant, as appears from the evidence of the Collector's Chitnis Exhibit 31.

(3.) In suit No. 104 of 1895 of the Shevgaon Court by the defendant-respondents predecessors against the predecessor of the appellant, a compromise decree was passed ordering that the plaintiffs in that suit should receive a one-sixth share out of the "vasuli rakam" every year and that the defendant should pay to the plaintiffs one-sixth every year in the month of May. In 1900 defendant No. 1 applied in execution for the recovery of the one-sixth share, which the plaintiff had declined to pay, on the ground that the land revenue had been suspended by Government. That darkhast was allowed in favour of defendant No. 1 and similarly the second darkhast in 1921. In 1922, Government ordered that the land revenue for the year 1918-19, which had so far been only suspended, should be remitted. The defendants had already recovered their one-sixth share of the revenue for 1918-19 under the darkhast of 1921. The plaintiff sued in the present suit for a declaration that the defendants had no right to recover this one-sixth share in the year in which the Collector had suspended or remitted the revenue and claimed a refund of the amount remitted for the year 1918-19. The defendants set up the decree and the order in the previous darkhast and contended that the claim was res judicata. Both the lower Courts upheld the defendants contention and dismissed the claim as res judicata. The plaintiff appeals.