AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.—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.
There is no other arguable point in, this case which is dismissed with costs.