Krishnan, J.@mdashThese are revision petitions arising from a number of small cause suits, filed by the Zamindar of Kallikotta, against various
inamdars, holding lands in the Zamin Village of Mardakota, for kattuhadi and land cess alleged to be due. The Zamindar''s case is that the inams
were granted for Paik''s service, by one of his predeeessors-in-title, with a condition attached, that each inamdar was to pay to the Zamindar a
kattuhadi equal to 1/4th of the Rajabhogam, or the total income of the inamdars from the lands. The defendants in the various suits pleaded inter
alia that they were not liable to pay kattubadi separately as claimed, but were only liable as a body to pay a lump sum of Rs. 53 for it every fasli.
They also pleaded that the grant was absolute and not burdened with any service; but that question did not arise for decision in these suits. There is
also no question raised before me about the liability for land cess. The District Munsif found on the evidence that the inamdars were not individually
liable to pay any kattubadi but they were liable collectively to pay a fixed sum of Rs. 400 every fasli to the Zamindar and not Rs. 53 as they
pleaded. As no claim was made in these suits to enforce this joint liability, ha dismissed them, except as regards the claims for land-cess and
interest on them which were decreed. The Zamindar has applied to this Court to revise this judgment.
2. One of the suits brought by the Zamindar had to be tried as an Original Suit, as the value of the claim was beyond the small cause jurisdiction of
the Hunsif. These Small Cause Suits and that suit were however all tried together, at the request of parties and the judgment given is a common one
for all the suits. The decree in the Original Suit is now under appeal before the Subordinate Judge and it was urged by the learned Advocate
General that the hearing of the revision petitions should be stayed, till the disposal of that appeal, as different findings of fact may be arrived at by
that learned Judge. This suggestion was strongly opposed by the learned Vakil for the inamdars. As pointed out by him, any finding of fact that the
Subordinate Judge may come to, different from the Munsif''s will be of no avail in the disposal of these petitions, as the parties here are different
from the parties in the appeal, the Zamindar being the only common factor. These petitions have already been on this Court''s file for nearly four
years. I therefore decline to grant the prayer for further adjournment.
3. The finding that the defendants are liable only as a body to pay a kattubadi of Rs. 400 per fasli to the Zamindar is a finding of fact from the oral
and documentary evidence in the case and as such it should be accepted in revision. But it is contended by the learned Advocate General that in
coming to that finding the District, Munsif misconstrued Exs. A and A (1) and misunderstood their nature and thus failed to attach due weight to
them. Now Exs. A and A (1) are ""Kham Bhogattas"" of faslies 1225 and 1226 (1816 and 1817). They refer to the Rajah being paid at 4 annas per
rupee, or 1/4th share of the total income ""as per the yearly mamool"". The District Munsif instead of ascertaining the meaning of the term ""Kham
Bhogatta"", from some recognised glossary of such terms, entered upon a philological speculation of his own, as to what its meaning might be and
came to the conclusion that it meant an account prepared for ""his own information"", by the Karnam. He, therefore, treated it as of little value and
preferred Exs. A (2) and (4) which were returns made to the Collector. No doubt be was not strictly correct in the meaning be attached to the
expression ""Kham Bhogatta"". Bhogatta is a Telugu word admittedly meaning ""information"". Now the word ""Kham"" which is a Persian word means,
according to Wilson''s Glossary ""gross, immature"". ""Kham Chitta"" which evidently corresponds to Kham Bhogatta is said to mean a rough
statement or account; ""Kham Wossool"" is stated to mean gross receipts of revenue and also a settlement made with the cultivators direct, without
the intervention of a third person, or a farmer or Zamindar. From the various meanings given above to expressions containing the word ""Kham"",
the phrase ""Kham Bhogatta"" would seem to mean a rough account of the revenue due, prepared for information.
4. Even though Exs. A and A (1) are only rough accounts they are entitled to considerable weight as documents of a very early date; and there is
no doubt a reference in them to the Zamindar''s share being a quarter. I am, however, of opinion that the weight to be given to these documents
does not really affect the validity of the Munsif''s finding in these cases. They only show that the Zamindar''s claim was calculated at a 1/4th share in
the years 1816 and 1817. We find however in Ex. A (4) a return submitted by the then Zamindar in 1861 and signed by him, a statement that the
Kattubadi was Rs. 400. It is manifestly not a 1/4th share of the inaome which is stated to have been Rs. 1,517. The present Taluq Officer of the
Kallikotta Estate, P.W. 1, had admitted in evidence that the same amount of Rs. 400 had been collected as Kattubadi from the defendants for all
the 16 years that he had been in service and that when an attempt was made in fasli 1324 (1914) to introduce an ""asamiwar irusal"" or ""individual
war account"", the defendants promptly objected and in spite of criminal and other coercive proceedings, it has been found impossible to enforce it.
We must therefore take it, as the District Munsif has found, that for 50 or 60 years now, the same lump sum of Rs. 400 a year has been paid by
the inamdars as a body, as kattubadi to the Zamindar. Whatever therefore might have been the Zamindar''s original claim, the facts here are
sufficient to justify the inference that there is an implied contract between the Zamindar and the inamdars that the latter are to pay only a sum of Rs.
400 a year jointly. The Zamindar is not entitled now to go back on such an arrangement. The fact that though from time to time holdings of heirless
paiks were resumed by the Zamindar, the total amount of kuttubadi was left intact at Rs. 400 and the fact that the increase in the number of
inamdars on the other hand also did not affect the amount payable, strongly corroborate I the inference that the liability of the inamdars was a joint
one to pay a fixed sum.
5. In these circumstances, I do not think it necessary to call for a revised finding from the District Munsif, on the ground of his having given an
inaccurate meaning to the expression ""Kham Bhogatta,"" which is the only ground urged in support of the claim for it.
6. It was lastly urged that as the inamdars were all jointly liable to pay kattubadi at the rate of Rs. 400 a year, decrees should have been given
against one or more of the defendants, for a sum or sums not exceeding Rs. 400 on the whole. It was urged that it was open to the Zamindar to
claim the whole amount from any one of the persons jointly liable, leaving it to the latter to claim contribution from his co-obligors. Now such a
claim was not made in the lower Court. In this Court, the Advocate-General asks that a decree may be given against the defendant in S.C.S. No.
846 of 1918, for the amount claimed against him in that suit, for the three faslies. As that amount is less than Rs. 400 per fasli, a decree will be so
given. The decree in that suit will be modified by giving the plaintiff a decree for the full amount Rs. 190-4-9 including the land cess already
decreed. In that case, the parties will bear their costs. The other Civil Revision Petitions are all dismissed with costs in cases in which the
respondents are represented. Vakil''s fee at Rs. 10 each but not exceeding the regulation fee in any single case.
[And this case having been posted to be spoken to and coining on for hearing again this 25th day of April, 1923, the Court made the following]
ORDER
7. The order as to costs is revised by giving a fee of Rs. 5 in each case irrespective of the regulation fee.
