Gokavarapu Swami vs Manda Sateyya and Another

The question that arises for decision in this petition is whether the attachment of the standing crop on the potter service inam land in execution of

the decree obtained by the decree-holder in a small cause suit is contrary to law in view of Section 5 of Madras Act III of 1895. There is no doubt

that the land is potter service inam land and that the office of village potter is one of the offices included in Section 3 of Madras Act III of 1895.

The point was decided definitely so long ago as 1899 in Kannan Naidu v. Latchanna Dora I.L.R.(1899) 23 Mad. 492 and the learned Judges who

laid down the law in that case were judges to whose opinion a great deal of weight must be attached and one of them was a Judge of great revenue

experience. The correctness of that ruling has not been questioned so far as we are aware up till now though more than 35 years have elapsed. The

two decisions by single Judges which have been referred to in the course of argument do not seem to have anything to do with the emoluments

attached to the village office of the kind mentioned in Section 3 of Madras Act III of 1895. They do not moreover consider the question whether

growing crops on village service inam lands are part of the emoluments attached to the offices. We also note that before Madras Act III of 1895

became law the enactment which laid down the law on this subject was Regulation VI of 1831 which makes it very clear that it was the

emoluments arising from the land that were annexed to the village offices in question and that it was these emoluments which arise from the land

which were declared inalienable and not attachable. It would appear therefore that for a period of nearly a century it has been understood generally

that growing crops on village service inam lands are exempt from attachment by reason of the fact that they are annexed to, and in fact formed part

of the emoluments attached to the village offices in question. We see no reason whatever to disturb what has been regarded as settled law for such

a long period. The question therefore must be decided in the affirmative, that is to say, that the attachment of growing crops on potter service inam

lands is prohibited by Madras Act III of 1895. It follows from this that the decision sought to be revised is right and that the revision petition must

fail. It is accordingly dismissed with costs.