ADIVIKOLANU CHAKRAPANI RAO Vs. SRI RAJAH VENKATADRI APPA RAO BAHADUR ZAMINDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal raises the question of the right of the plaintiff to resume certain service inam lands in the possession of the defendants in the village of Adivikolanu in the Baharzalli Pargana of the Nidadavolu estate which originally formed part of the ancient Nuzvid Zamindari. The ground of resumption was that in or about 1852 the plaintiff's predecessor-in- title granted these lands to the defendants predecessor-in-title who were karnams of the village and who were doing personal and private services to the proprietors of the estate. Money salaries were provided for the karnams in the place of emoluments annexed to their office by putting into operation the provisions of Act 2 of 1894, and as the services have been dispensed with by the plaintiff he was entitled to resume the lands. The main question in this case is whether the suit lands were service inam lands, and when they were granted and for what purpose. The learned District Munsif who tried the suit was of opinion that they were granted in or about 1852 by the Government who were then managing the zarnindari, and that they came into existence in the place of lavajamas and they were not granted for any private and personal services to be rendered by the kamaras to the zamindar. But the learned Subordinate Judge took a different view. He held that they were granted for doing personal services. In para. 5 of this judgment he sums up his conclusions thus: It is, I think, therefore beyond reasonable doubt that defendants held the suit lands on account of the service which their family was doing to the zamindar, and now that they are not doing any service to the zamindar as defendant 3 himself admits, they are, I think, liable to restore what had been granted to them as remuneration lor the service.

(2.) This is a finding of fact which would not warrant my interference in second appeal. Mr. Suryanarayana contends that the learned Subordinate Judge must be deemed to have proceeded upon an erroneous view that because the karnams were doing private services to the zamindar these lands must be deemed to have been granted to them. No doubt it was held in Secy. of State V/s. Chandra Mouleswara Prasada that the fact that the karnam rendered some private services to the zamindar would not make him a servant of the zamindar, and from that if; cannot be inferred that any land granted by the zamindar must be deemed to be for private services. But it does not follow from that decision that the zamindar cannot grant lands to a karnam for doing private work. If for a long period they were rendering private service to the zamindar, from this and other circumstances it is open to the Court to infer that certain lands were granted by the zamindar for doing such service. The learned Subordinate Judge draws from the evidence in the case that the suit lands must have been granted by the zamindar to the defendants as remuneration for private services. If this finding is accepted the zamindar is certainly entitled to dispense with their services and resume the lands. I am not prepared to say that in arriving at this finding he committed any error which would justify interference in second appeal. In this view it is unnecessary to canvass the correctness or otherwise of the dictum of Venkatasubba Rao, J. in Thiruvenkatacharlu V/s. Shaik Altoo Sahib AIR 1926 Mad 511 regarding the presumption in case of service inam lands granted for private services by the zamindar.

(3.) Even assuming that these lands were granted in lieu of lavajamas they would be service inam lands granted by the proprietor within the meaning of Section 17, Clause 2, Madras Act 2 of 1894. On the finding that they were granted in lieu of remuneration for services, when money salaries were substituted for the emoluments, it is certainly open to a zamindar to resume the lands by virtue of the said provisions. The decision of the Privy Council in Chandra Mouleswara Prasada Bahadur V/s. Secy. of State is decisive on this matter. At p. 125 their Lordships observe: The Legislature did not, however, intend to deprive a private proprietor of his right to recover the land, if it was granted by him or his predecessor in interest. This is made clear by a proviso to that section. . . . .