1. The plaintiff in this suit is the proprietor of the permanently settled estate of North Vallur. He seeks to enforce the payment of a cess called Chathu tamulu. The defendants are holders of certain inam lands which are not liable for the payment of any rent to the proprietor. According to the plaint, the cess in question was payable by the defendants along with the holders of other lands in the village in question, viz., Gokunta, in consideration of the proprietor of the estate having originally dug and agreed to keep in repair certain tanks from which the ryots could take water for the irrigation of their lands. The defendants denied their liability to pay the cess, and several issues were framed by the District Munsif, which raised the question of the plaintiff's right to the cess. The 9th issue was whether the plaintiff was entitled to a charge on the land, i.e., for the cess in question. Both the lower Courts have agreed in disallowing the plaintiff's claim. The finding of the Courts is that the Chathu tamulu was payable in consideration of the proprietor keeping the tank from which the defendants took water for irrigation in proper repair. The tank fell into disuse long ago when the ancient system was introduced by Government. After the Government irrigation canal was dug, the zemindar was exempted from the payment of water cess for lands which were originally irrigated by his own tanks. Those, mamul wet lands have now been localised. The plaint lands are not amongst them, The position, therefore, is, that the zemindar does not now repair the tank irrigating the defendants' lands and they derive no benefit in consideration of which the zemindar could claim payment of the Chathu tamulu cess.
2. It is urged that part of the consideration for the cess was the zemindar's digging the tank for the use of the ryots including the defendants. If this were the case, then it can, no doubt, be reasonably contended that the payment of the cess being partly in consideration of an act already done by the zemindar, it could not be discontinued on the mere ground that the zemindar, after the canal was dug by Government, ceased to keep the tank in repair. But there is absolutely no evidence in support of the contention that the digging of the tank was part of the consideration for the payment of the cess. The first issue clearly raised the question of the' plaintiff's right to claim the cess. The plaintiff was be and to prove, if he could, that part of the consideration for the continued payment of the cess had been already rendered by the zemindar. Ha failed to do so. The Subordinate Judge has accepted the meaning of the expression Chathutamulu given in Wilson's Glossary. It is contended that that meaning should not have been acted on in this case. But it was for the plaintiff to prove the right claims by him and he altogether failed to adduce any evidence in support of it.
3. It is farther urged that, in certain previous oases, the, payment of the cess was enforced by the Court including this Court in second appeal although the zemindar had already ceased to have any of the tanks repaired. But the present defendants were not parties to those suits. The judgment of this Court proceeded merely on the findings, arrived at by the lower Appellate Courts.
4. It is impossible to hold that the defendants in this suit are bound by any of the previous judgments or even that they would be evidence against them; nor have any of those judgments been put in evidence in this case. We must hold, therefore, that there is no ground for interference in second appeal and we accordingly dismiss the second appeal with costs.