Skip to content


Gollapudi Venkatachalapathi Rao Vs. Adusumilli Gopalakrishnayya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in147Ind.Cas.756
AppellantGollapudi Venkatachalapathi Rao
RespondentAdusumilli Gopalakrishnayya
Cases ReferredPaktaravy Mudali v. Audimoola Mudali
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order ii, rule 2 - separate suits for successive years kattubadi-- kattubadi not fixed but varying according to produce--applicability of order ii, rule 2--enfranchisement of portion, effect of. - - but i think a better one still is plain upon the facts. 5. the 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 ii, rule 2. no doubt the suits are for kattubadi due in successive years to the same landholder 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 putti of gross produce grown from year to year upon the lands within the mokhasa, it is plain that 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 crops has actually been harvested. the lands upon.....
Judgment:

Krishnan Pandalai, J.

1. These appeals arise from sails brought for recovery of kattubadi by a zemindar against a mokhasadar. 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.

2. The two matters pressed by the appellant are (1) that the subsequent suit, the sub feet-matter of Second Appeal No. 1027 of 1931, was barred under Order II, 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.

3. As for the argument based upon Order II Rule 2, the learned Subordinate Judge relying on Paktaravy Mudali v. Audimoola Mudali 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 include J 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 II, Rule 2. No doubt the suits are for kattubadi due in successive years to the same landholder 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 putti of gross produce grown from year to year upon the lands within the mokhasa, it is plain that 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 crops has actually been harvested. The lands upon which the crops are grown need not be the same; the cultivators who raise the crops needs not be the same; and when that is to be applied to an. area which, is said lobe about 800 or 900 acres the utter impossibility of determining beforehand the kattubadi due for each particular year becomes apparent. It, seems to me, therefore, 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.

4. The other question is whether the plaintiff claim should be diminished by one-half on account of enfranchisement by Government of one-half of the mokhasa. 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 zemindar and on payment of kattubadi to him. All that the Government did was to enfranchise that portion not demarcated, by menes and bounds, but the undivided half of the mokhasa area which was held for Police services. This left the relation between the zemindar and the mokhasdar 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 of the kattubadi payable to the zemindar 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.

5. The Second Appeals fail and are dismissed with costs.


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