The Secretary Of State For India In ... vs Mahaboob Sir Frazvant Sri Raja ... on 28 January, 1926
2. The village of Thimmaraogundem was admittedly a pre-settlement mokhasa (vide Ex. A) and subject to a kattubadi of Rs. 960-0-0 at the date of the Permanent Settlement of the zamindari. It is thus an "alienated land" within the meaning of the Preamble to the Madras Regn. 31 of 1802 and the right of resumption inhered in the Government by virtue of the power reserved under Clause 4, Madras Permanent Settlement Regn. 25 of 1802. This position cannot seriously be disputed especially after the recent pronouncement of the Privy Council reported in Secretary of State v. Sobhandri Appa Rao A.I.R. 1937 P.C. 209 Between 1802 and 1860 the zamindari of Nidadavolu has a chequered history. It was being badly mismanaged by the zamindars for the time being and came into the possession of the Government three times. In 1831, the Government was in management of the zamindari through the Court of Wards. They found that the kattubadi payable by the mokha-sadars was in arrears. Under the law then prevailing, it was open to the landlords to realize arrears of rent due to them without resorting to Courts of law by distraint of personal property or by attachment of the farms and tenures of defaulters and realizing all rents there from. The Court of Wards chose to adopt the latter course with reference to the suit mokhasa. They therefore attached it and this was in pursuance of the power conferred by Clause 6 of Section 34, Madras Regn, 28 of 1802. It is to this clause one has to look for the definition of the legal relationship between the zamindar and the mokhasadar and the nature of their rights and obligations. The material provisions of Clause 6 relevant for the purpose of the present discussion runs thus :