Skip to content


Adapaka Bapanna Vs. Sri Raja Inuganti Rajagopala Rao Bahadur Garu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil;Property
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916Mad644; 31Ind.Cas.813
AppellantAdapaka Bapanna
RespondentSri Raja Inuganti Rajagopala Rao Bahadur Garu
Cases ReferredSobhanadri Appa Rao v. Gopalkristnamma
Excerpt:
madras regulation (xxv of 1802), section 4 - inam--jodi payable by inamdar to zemindar whether excluded in fixing peishcush--resumption and levy of full assessment by government, if takes away liability to pay jodi. - .....favourable quit rents' and excludes those articles of revenue from consideration in fixing the permanent assessment on the basis of the true income of the zemindar. that what was excluded was not the jodi payable to the zemindar by an inamdar but the difference between the jodi and the proper assessment claimable from the lands if they had not been granted in inam, seems to be clear. the government was concerned only with and, therefore, reserved its powers to deal with this difference and not with the jodi itself. the argument of mr. somayya that in sobhanadri appa rao v. gopalkristnamma 16 m.p 34 the learned judges decided upon the construction of the particular permanent sanad put forward in that case and not upon the construction of section 4 of the regulation, cannot be.....
Judgment:

Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. Section 4 of Regulation XXV of 1802 is very awkwardly worded. It speaks of articles of revenue included...under the several heads of' (among other heads) '...' 'all other lands paying only favourable quit rents' and excludes those articles of revenue from consideration in fixing the permanent assessment on the basis of the true income of the zemindar. That what was excluded was not the jodi payable to the zemindar by an inamdar but the difference between the jodi and the proper assessment claimable from the lands if they had not been granted in inam, seems to be clear. The Government was concerned only with and, therefore, reserved its powers to deal with this difference and not with the jodi itself. The argument of Mr. Somayya that in Sobhanadri Appa Rao v. Gopalkristnamma 16 M.P 34 the learned Judges decided upon the construction of the particular permanent sanad put forward in that case and not upon the construction of Section 4 of the Regulation, cannot be accepted.

2. There is no other arguable point in, this case which is dismissed with costs.


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