Skip to content


Sri Maharajah of Vizianagram Vs. Kota Veeranna and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1911)21MLJ819
AppellantSri Maharajah of Vizianagram
RespondentKota Veeranna and ors.
Cases ReferredZemindar of Tarla v. Latchiah
Excerpt:
- .....the allowance or fees respectively called malikana and haqq, or of cesses or other dues when the cesses or dues are payable to a person by reason of his interest in immoveable property or in an hereditary office, or in a shrine or other religious institution.'2. now can it be said that the laud cess is payable to the zamindar by the inamdar by reason of the former's interest in immoveable property? we think not. the land cess is a tax levied by the government and the landlord who in the first instance has paid to the government is entitled to recover it from an intermediate tenure-holder because the latter as between himself and the landlord is the person who ought to bear the burden of the tax. the cesses and dues contemplated in article 13 are payments which a person is entitled to.....
Judgment:

1. The preliminary objection has been taken that no second appeal lies in this case as the suit is of a small cause nature. The question is whether a suit for recovery of land cess by the zemindar from the inamdar can be said to fall within Article 13 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. That article is in these words : 'A suit to enforce payment of the allowance or fees respectively called malikana and haqq, or of cesses or other dues when the cesses or dues are payable to a person by reason of his interest in immoveable property or in an hereditary office, or in a shrine or other religious institution.'

2. Now can it be said that the laud cess is payable to the zamindar by the inamdar by reason of the former's interest in immoveable property? We think not. The land cess is a tax levied by the Government and the landlord who in the first instance has paid to the Government is entitled to recover it from an intermediate tenure-holder because the latter as between himself and the landlord is the person who ought to bear the burden of the tax. The cesses and dues contemplated in Article 13 are payments which a person is entitled to as representing his interest in certain immoveable property and not because he possesses some interest in immoveable property. We are fortified in this conclusion by the ruling in Zemindar of Tarla v. Latchiah (1902) 13 M.L.J. 211 and in S.A. No. 10 of 1907.

3. The preliminary objection prevailing, this second appeal is dismissed with costs.


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