1. The first point raised was that there was no legal agreement to enhance the Kattubadi in 1854. At that time the village was under attachment and defendant's mother and guardian executed the vakalat A to vakil Roya Charlu to authorize him to make terms for the release of the village. The petition, B was presented by the vakil on the same day as also the sannad B. Having regard to the language of exhibit A, we are not prepared to hold that these documents were beyond the scope of the vakil's authority. Nor do we think that such an arrangement made to put an end to a bona fide dispute was beyond the power of defendant's mother and guardian. A precisely similar settlement was recognized in Suryanarayana's case I. L. R. (1886) M. 307 The arrangement might therefore be valid without necessity of ratification. But the defendant attained majority in 1871, and it was not until the Privy Council Judgment was given in 1886 that the settlement was questioned. It was then decided that such enhancements were beyond the power of the incoming Zemindar and the obvious, inference was that the enhancement of 1854 might have been resisted on the same ground. We cannot accept the contention that there is no evidence that the enhanced Kattubadi was in fact paid. Not only are the long series of accounts corroborative evidence of such payment, but the mortgage-bond C shows that the defendant had himself accepted the enhanced rate. There is legal evidence to support the finding of the courts below.
2. The next contention is that in as much as the last payment of Kattubadi was made in April 1879 and the suit was brought on June 20th, 1891--the whole claim is bat-red. It was argued that the irregular levy of Kattubadi abandoned more than 12 years be-fore suit was not proof of a legal right Ramachandra v. Jaganmohana I. L. R. (1891) M. 161 and that even if the right was not extinguished, Kattubadi was only rent and not more than three years rent can be recovered. In proof of this latter position two unreported cases (S.A. No. 1061 of 1894 and Section A. No. 692 of 1893) were referred, to. Though the last payment of Kattubadi was in 1879, the suit is only for 11 years instalments and if Kattubadi is a rent charge the case falls under Section 132 of the Limitation Act and the suit is in time. That Kattubadi is a rent charge and really a portion of the revenue reserved was held in Ramachandra v. Jaganmohana I. L. R. (1891) M. 161 and in many decided cases. See also Alubi v. Kuhi Bi I. L. R. (1886) M. 115 It follows that 12 years Kattubadi may be recovered. The decision in S.A. No. 1061 of 1894 is not in conflict with this view. The claim was for Es. 25 as Kattubadi and it was not brought in a Small Cause Court but on the regular side of a District Mcrasiff's Court. An appeal was heard by the Subordinate Judge. A second appeal was rejected by the High Court under Section 586, Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground that the suit was of a small cause nature. The sum claimed was Its. 25 only and it was not sought to make it a charge upon the land. It was held that the claim was not for a cess--but that though originally payable to the Government as revenue it was now payable to the Zamindar as rent. The question of rent-charge did not arise.
3. It must be admitted that the decision in Second Appeal No. 692 of 1893 is inconsistent with the reported cases as to the nature, of Kattubadi, but the case is not reported and we do not feel bound to follow it.
4. We must hold therefore that the claim is not barred and dismiss the second appeal with costs.