Skip to content


(Gollapudi) Venkatachalapathi Rao Vs. Adusumilli Gopala Krishnayya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1934Mad46; 147Ind.Cas.756
Appellant(Gollapudi) Venkatachalapathi Rao
RespondentAdusumilli Gopala Krishnayya
Cases ReferredPaktaravy Mudali v. Audimoolu Mudali
Excerpt:
- - but i think a better one still is plain upon the facts. these second appeals fail and are dismissed with costs......the two suits were not brought upon the same cause of action, and it is only when a subsequent suit is brought upon the same cause of action that any question can arise under order 2, rule 2. no doubt the suits are for kattubadi due in successive years to the same land-holder from the same mokhasadar upon portions of the same mokhasa. but, when regard is had to the fact that the kattubadi now in question is not a fixed, payment in money or in kind but a payment at the rate of rs. 2 per puttiof' gross produce grown from year to year; upon the lands within the mokhasa, it is plain that the annual kattubadi cannot possibly be the same in successive years and can only be ascertained each year after the cultivation is over and when the crop has actually been harvested. the lands upon.....
Judgment:

Pandalai, J.

1. These appeals arise from Suits brought for recovery of kattubadi by a zamindar against a mokasadar. The several points in dispute between the parties are succinctly set forth by the learned Subordinate Judge in his clear judgment. There are eight points and though the learned advocate for the appellant did not abandon any of them, he has really stressed only two. Of the rest it is sufficient to say that I agree with the learned Judge in his conclusions. The two matters pressed By the appellant are: (1) that the subsequent suit, the subject-matter of Second Appeal No. 1027 of 1931, was barred under Order 2, Rule 2, because it was brought on the same cause of action as the earlier suit, the subject matter of Second Appeal No, 1028 of 1931; and (2) that the plaintiff is entitled to kattubadi only for half the area of the mokhasa because the Government had enfranchised the other half.

2. As for the argument based upon Order 2, Rule 2, the learned Subordinate Judge relying on Paktaravy Mudali v. Audimoolu Mudali (1869) 5 M.H.C.R 419, rejected it on the ground that the earlier suit was brought as a small cause suit at a time when the Subordinate Judge could exercise small cause jurisdiction only up to Rs. 300 and if the kattubadi for the latter years had been included in that suit, the suit could not have been cognisable in the Small Cause Court. This may be a sufficient ground for rejecting the argument; but I think a better one still is plain upon the facts. The two suits were not brought upon the same cause of action, and it is only when a subsequent suit is brought upon the same cause of action that any question can arise under Order 2, Rule 2. No doubt the suits are for kattubadi due in successive years to the same land-holder from the same mokhasadar upon portions of the same mokhasa. But, when regard is had to the fact that the kattubadi now in question is not a fixed, payment in money or in kind but a payment at the rate of Rs. 2 per puttiof' gross produce grown from year to year; upon the lands within the mokhasa, it is plain that the annual kattubadi cannot possibly be the same in successive years and can only be ascertained each year after the cultivation is over and when the crop has actually been harvested. The lands upon which the crops are grown need not be the same; the cultivators who raise the crops need not be the same; and when that is to be applied to an area which is said to be about 800 or 900 acres, the utter impossibility of determining beforehand the kattubadi due for each particular year becomes apparent. It seems to me there : fore that this is a case of different causes of action arising from the same transaction or relation between the same parties and not suits upon the same cause of action in which the plaintiff is entitled ' to more or less relief. On that ground this objection fails.

3. The other question is whether the plaintiff's claim should be diminished by one-half on account of enfranchisement, by Government of one-half of the mokasa. To this the answer is furnished-in very clear language by the Subordinate Judge in para. 12. The mokhasa was. held from before the permanent settlement partly for police services, which of course being of a public nature are due to the State, and partly for personal services due to the zamindar and on payment of kattubadi to him. All that the Government did was to enfranchise that portion not demarcated by metes and bounds, that the undivided half of the mokbasa area which was held for police services. This left the relation between the zamindar and the mokasadar intact and in no way affected it. The kattubadi payable before remained the kattubadi payable after the enfranchisement, and if anything more were necessary to make this plain, the inam title deed shows that the quit rent imposed upon the enfranchised half by the Government was expressly stated to be exclusive o the kattubadi payable to the zamindar which, as the records show, happened in that year to be Rs. 18-8-0. The Subordinate Judge was therefore right in rejecting this contention also. These second appeals fail and are dismissed with costs.


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