Skip to content


Thurga Ramachandra Rau Vs. Appayya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR7Mad128
AppellantThurga Ramachandra Rau
RespondentAppayya
Excerpt:
regulation xxv of 1802, section 11 - srotriyamdar--suit to dismiss karnam. - - the plaintiff, if he has any complaint against the karnam, should complain to......to appoint the karnam, or to sue for his dismissal. the plaintiff, if he has any complaint against the karnam, should complain to. the collector of the district.5. we affirm the decree of the district court, and dismiss this second appeal.
Judgment:

Kindersley, J.

1. The plaintiff, a srotriyamdar, has brought this suit for the dismissal of the karnam of his villages, on the ground that the defendant (karnam) had been appointed by him, but did not conduct his duties properly, nor explain his accounts properly to plaintiff, and that defendant spoke insultingly to the plaintiff.

2. The District Munsif made a decree dismissing the defendant from the office of karnam with costs. The District Court, however, reversed that decree, the Judge being of opinion that the provisions of Regulation XXV of 1802 did not apply to this case.

3. This second appeal has been brought on the ground that under the regulations the Civil Courts had the power to dismiss the karnams, and that the defendant had received his appointment from the plaintiff. The object of Regulation XXV of 1802 was to settle permanently the peshkash due to Government by certain zamindars and other landholders, who thereupon became entitled to receive from Government a sanad-i-milkiyat istimrar, in which the terms of the tenure were entered. Such zamindars were entitled under the Regulations of 1802 to appoint proper persons to be karnams; but the karnams so appointed could not be dismissed, except by order of the Zila Judge upon a suit brought for that purpose.

4. The plaintiff in this case is not a zamindar, or other landholder paying a peshkash fixed under Regulation XXV of 1802. He is merely a person on whose lands for some reason much less than the usual land-tax was assessed, and whose inam has lately become enfranchised, so that he may dispose of it as he pleases. It does not appear that he had any authority at any time to appoint the karnam, or to sue for his dismissal. The plaintiff, if he has any complaint against the karnam, should complain to. the Collector of the district.

5. We affirm the decree of the District Court, and dismiss this second appeal.


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