Skip to content


Krishna Mahanty Vs. Gangadhara Padhi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927Mad670; 103Ind.Cas.120; (1927)52MLJ706
AppellantKrishna Mahanty
RespondentGangadhara Padhi and ors.
Cases ReferredVenkatagiri Rajah v. Venkat Rau
Excerpt:
- .....therefore is not on all fours with the present case. i see no such difference in principle between inam jodi paid to a zamindar and sub-inam jodi paid to an inamdar as would make article 13 applicable to the latter while not applicable to the former. the ratio decidendi in venkatagiri rajah v. venkat rau ilr (1897) m 243 is general and would cover all cases of what is technically known as jodi, and the liability of defendants in the present case is so known to and so called by the inam deputy collector.3. i, therefore, hold following venkatagiri rajah v. venkat rau ilr (1897) m 243 that jodi in this case is of the nature of rent and that a suit for it is a suit of a small cause nature. the amounts sued for in each case are less than rs.500. no second appeals therefore lie.4. these.....
Judgment:

Wallace, J.

1. A preliminary objection is taken by respondents that no Second Appeal lies as the suits are of a Small Cause nature. Plaintiff in fact filed the suits in the Small Cause Court, and they were transferred to the Original Side as some question of title was involved. He now, having lost the suits in both Courts, claims that a second appeal lies.

2. The suits are for what is called 'choutayi' dues from defendants. This is a payment of the nature of 'jodi' as is set out in the Inam Register, Ex. I. Plaintiff corresponds to 'the 1st in Col. 16' in that document and defendants to the rest. The latter have to pay one-fourth of the gross produce as jodi to plaintiff. The question is whether this jodi comes within Article 13 of Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. In Venkatagiri Rajah v. Rau ILR (1897) M 243 it was held by this Court that jodi is not a Cess or due as set out in that article, but is rent on favourable terms. Plaintiff contends that that case was a case of a Zamindar suing to recover quit rent from an agra-haramdar on the footing that the right to collect this was part of the consideration on which his peishkush was calculated, and that this consideration does not apply to sub-inamdars, such as defendants, holding under an inamdar. He refers me to Madhavrao Moreshvar v. Rama Kalu ILR (1914) 131. The decision in that case turns on the meaning given by statute to the word 'dues' in a Revenue Jurisdiction Act in force in the Bombay Presidency and therefore is not on all fours with the present case. I see no such difference in principle between inam jodi paid to a Zamindar and sub-inam jodi paid to an inamdar as would make Article 13 applicable to the latter while not applicable to the former. The ratio decidendi in Venkatagiri Rajah v. Venkat Rau ILR (1897) M 243 is general and would cover all cases of what is technically known as jodi, and the liability of defendants in the present case is so known to and so called by the Inam Deputy Collector.

3. I, therefore, hold following Venkatagiri Rajah v. Venkat Rau ILR (1897) M 243 that jodi in this case is of the nature of rent and that a suit for it is a suit of a Small Cause nature. The amounts sued for in each case are less than Rs.500. No second appeals therefore lie.

4. These appeals are therefore dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //