MALYALA SURAYYA Vs. RAJAH SAHEB MEHARBAN IDOSTAN SREE RAJAH RAVU VENKATA KUMARA MAHIPATHI SURYA RAO BAHADUR GARU, SIRDAR, RAJAHMUNDRY SIRCAR AND RAJAH OF PITHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a batch of nine appeals. The same point arises in all the appeals. The plaintiffs suit is for a declaration that the Record of Rights made under Chap. XI of the Estates Land Act is incorrect in several particulars. The Ist defendant is the Rajah of Pithapuram, the other defendants are the tenants of the plaintiffs. Several issues were raised in all the cases and they were found by the Subordinate Judge in favour of the plaintiffs. The Ist defendant alone appealed against the decree of the Subordinate Judge. The tenants who were found not to have any occupancy right in the lands did not appeal against the decree of the Subordinate Judge. The District Judge has reversed the decree of the Subordinate Judge and dismissed the plaintiffs suit. The plaintiffs have preferred these second appeals.

(2.) The main question in these appeals is whether the suit lands were included in the assets of the Pithapuram Zamindari at the time of the Permanent Settlement so as to form part of the estate. The suit lands were enjoyed before the Permanent Settlement of 1802 by Desapandyas. Desapandyas is described in the Fifth Report on East India Affairs, Vol. III, page 24, thus: The next revenue officer of rank, and of the same class with the desmook, though of greater utility and sometimes of more extensive local jurisdiction, was the despandeah cannongoe, or provincial register. To ensure the honest full discharge of a very important trust, a russoom of two and a half per cent, on the revenue, ascertained by his own vouchers to have been collected throughout the country, was assigned to the public register, his heirs, and deputies in perpetuity. At the time of the Permanent Settlement the Government abolished these offices and added the russoom of two and a half per cent, of the total collections to the peishcush of the Pithapuram Zamindari. The District Judge holds that by including the russoom in the peishcush or permanent zummah payable by the Zamindar, the lands in the possession of the Desapandyas became part of the Zamindari. Mr. Rama Rao for the appellant contends that the documents relied upon by the District Judge for his finding, Exs. II, III and IV, have been misconstrued by him and they do not bear out the inference drawn from them.

(3.) Ex, II is the kabuliyat executed by the Zamindar of Pithapuram on 6 May, 1903. That all lakhiraj and alienated lands were excluded from the Zamindari is clear from the following recital: Exclusive of lakhiraj lands (lands exempt from the payment of public revenue) and of all other alienated lands paying a small quit rent (which quit rent unchangeable by me is included in the assets of my Zamindari or estate).