Decided on September 08,1950



Narasimham, J. - (1.) These thirteen appeals are against the appellate judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Berhampur affirming the judgment of the Munsif of Aska dismissing thirteen suits brought by the plaintiff-appellant for realisation of Jodi (quit rent) from the respondents.
(2.) The appellant is the proprietor of Dharakot estate which is an impartible zamin-dari in Ganjam District. He brought thirteen suits for realisation of arrears of Jodi from the respondents and some other co-sharers in respect of Page 2 of 5 gh vs. Arjuna Panigrahi and Ors. (08.09.1950 -ORIHC) Page 2 of 5 several inam lands situated within his zamindari. One of them was a Dharmila inam which was the subject-matter of R. S. No. 383 of 1944 which corresponds to F. A. 54 of 1948 in the Subordinate Judge's Court and against which Second Appeal No. 61 of 1948 was filed before this Court. So far as this suit is concerned, the trial Court held that the claim for Jodi was barred by res judicata in view of a previous decision between the parties. This view on the question of res judicata was not challenged in the lower' appellate Court. Mr. K. Patnaik on behalf of the appellant frankly conceded that he could not reagitate this question in this second appeal. Therefore Second Appeal No. 61 of 1948 must in any case fail.
(3.) The remaining twelve appeals deal with pro-settlement inams. In the title deeds of the inam register (Ext. 1 series) all these inams are shown as being in the possession of the alienees from the original inamdars. But in respect of every inam a certain sum is shown as Jodi payable to the zamindar in addition to quit rent payable to Government. The zamindar's claim to realise Jodi is based solely on the Inam register. But there is absolutely no evidence on his side to show that Jodi was ever realised from the Inamdars. On behalf of the respondents therefore it was contended that the entries in the Inam register are not conclusive on the question and that in view of the admission by the zamindar to the effect that he never realised any Jodi from the respondents, the Court ought to have held that no such rent was payable. The trial Court however rejected this contention relying mainly on the entries in the Inarn Register., In my opinion, the trial Court took the correct view. It may be that the relevant entries in the Inam register regarding Jodi payable to the zamindar may not have a statutory presumption of correctness such as an entry in the record-of rights. But as pointed out by the Privy Council in -- 'Arunachallam. Chetty A. R. R M V. v. Venkatachalapathi Guruswamigal', 43 Mad 253 at p. 263 the Inam register was prepared after thorough enquiry at the spot by public officials. Entries contained therein should in the absence of actual and authentic evidence to the contrary be I given utmost importance. Moreover, if the relevant rules dealing with the fixation of quit rent payable to the Government by an Inamdar are scrutinised it will be noticed that Jodi payable to the zamindar enters into the calculation for fixing quit rent. Therefore the entries in the Inam register cannot be brushed aside as a weak piece of evidence on the side of the zamindar or as having been more than rebutted by mere nonrealisation of Jodi at any time. I would therefore agree with the trial Court and hold that the zamindar's right to realise Jodi as mentioned in the Inam register should be recognised. Apparently this point was not seriously pressed before the lower appellate Court.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.