RAJAH OF VIZIANAGARAM Vs. DINDI CHINNA THAMMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point arising for decision in these petitions is whether the holder of a pre-settlement inam in a zemindari can under any and, if so what circumstances, be dealt with as an "intermediate landholder" from whom the zemindar can claim to recover the whole or a portion of the case paid by the zemindar to Government under Section 88 of the Madras Local Boards Act.

(2.) So far as we are able to gather from the materials now before us, the inam to which these petitions relate seems to have been granted long prior to the permanent settlement and in some of the reports filed in the case the purpose of the warn is described as "Veeti Koluvu" This expression has not been very much elucidated either by the translation of it in Brown's Dictionary or by the translation adopted by the District Munsif. We prefer to leave it in vernacular form so that the matter may be better investigated by the lower Court to which we are remanding these cases. It appears from the evidence-and on that circumstance one of the chief contentions raised by the defendants in the lower Court was based the holders of these inams are in actual occupation of the land. It was accordingly contended that they can?t be regarded as intermediate landholders within the meaning of Section 88. It has been held in Bhupati Raju v, Subba Rao 55 M. 646 : 141 Ind. Cas. 752 : A.I.R. 1932 Mad. 410 : 62 M.L.J. 472 : 35 L.W. 673 : Ind. Rul. (1933) Mad. 159 that the possession of the laud itself by the inamdar does not preclude his being an intermediate landholder within the meaning of Section 88 because the first proviso to that section contemplates cases where the intermediate landholder may or may not have a right of occupancy. In Bhupati Rao V/s. Subba Rao 55 M. 646 : 141 Ind. Cas. 752 : A.I.R. 1932 Mad. 410 : 62 M.L.J. 472 : 35 L.W. 673 : Ind. Rul. (1933) Mad. 159 the inamdar no doubt held a darimilla or post-settlement inam; but it does not appear to us that the decisive fact is whether the inam is a pre-settlement inam or post- settlement inam but whether even in the case of a pre-settlement inam the lands have been excluded from or included in the assets of the zemindari, when the permanent settlement was made. The scheme of the Local Boards Act is that when the inam lands have not been included in the assets of the zemindari the inamdar is himself a landholder holding directly under the Government. But if the assets include the inam lands as well, he has no direct relation with the Government but the Government collects the cess from the landholder and the landholder reimburses himself from the inamdar treating him as an intermediate landholder.

(3.) In the plaint as originally filed the suit inam was described as darimilla inam but the written statement pointed out that the inam had been granted long before the permanent settlement. The plaint apparently made a mistake on account of the way in which the estate accounts have referred to this inam. Sometime after the written statement was filed and the mistake was pointed out, an application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff to amend the plaint (I.A. No. 291 of 1933 and similar applications in the rest of the batch) but the District Munsif dismissed it. We do not think that in the circumstances the amendment petition really attempted to change the cause of action. We accordingly allow the amendment to be made as prayed for but in the circumstances we also think it right to allow an opportunity, to the defendants to raise any additional pleas that they may think tit to raise with reference to the plaint thud amended. The lower Court will then decide the question whether or not the suit inam lands had been excluded from the permanent settlement. There is an observation in the District Munsifs judgment that the Freese report shows that they have been excluded. From the position now made available to us we do not think that it is so. Mr. Lakshmanna the learned Counsel for the respondent has not been able to draw our attention to any such portion in the report. That observation of the District Munsif will accordingly be ignored and the question tried afresh.