JUDGMENT : Narasimham, J. - This appeal is by the Plaintiff against the concurrent decisions of the two lower Courts dismissing his suit for eviction of the Respondents from some lands situate in village Khandava on the ground that the suit was not congnizable by the Civil Court. 2. The Plaintiff is the Dora of village Khandava which is one of the Doratenam villages within Parlakimedi zamindari. He urged that the Defendants were merely lessees who were permitted to cultivate some of the lands of the village on payment of cash rental to the Plaintiff, that they had no occupancy rights in the lands inasmuch as they were not tenants as contemplated in the Madras Estates Land Act and that he was entitled to evict them after giving due notice to quit. The main defence of the Defendants was that Khandava village was an estate as defined in Section 3(2) of the Madras Estates Land Act and that they had acquired occupancy rights over the disputed Land as ryota of the village. Hence, they urged that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. 3. The suit was instituted on 5-1-33 in the Court of the Munsif of Chicacole. On 24-7-35 it was stayed u/s 127 of Madras Act VIII of 1984. Later on, on 1-12-36 the Munsif dismissed the suit holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. The dispute was taken up in appeal before the District Judge of Ganjam-Puri at Berhampur and was eventually taken up to the High Court of Patna, Cuttack Circuit, in C.R. No. 159/38. On 6-3.40 Rowland, J. remanded the suit for further hearing after framing the following two important issues: 1(a) - Whether the village in question is not an estate or part of an estate within the meaning of Section 3(2) of the M.E.L. Act ? 1(b) - Whether the land in suit is ryoti land? The present controversy between the parties is confined to these two issues only and all other points that were urged in the early stages of the litigation may be said to have been not pressed. 4. 1(b) - Whether the land in suit is ryoti land? The present controversy between the parties is confined to these two issues only and all other points that were urged in the early stages of the litigation may be said to have been not pressed. 4. A correct decision of the aforesaid two issues depends on (i) Whether Khandava village was a pre-settlement inam or post-settlement inam known as Dharmila inam; (ii) assuming it to be a post-settlement inam (a) is it a village held on a permanent under-tenure so as to attract the provisions of Section 3(2)(e) of the M.E.L. Act? or else (b) is it a village created on service tenure and is the tenure still subsisting? [Section 3(16)(c).] 5. There is practically no evidence to show that Khandava village is a pre settlement inam. It is included within the geographical limits of the zamindari of Parlakimedi and from Exts. 27 and 28 which are certified copies of the list of villages within Parlakimedi zamindari prepared sometime in 1804 it appears that Khandava village was included within the zamindari and its assets were taken into account in fixing the Pescus payable by the zamindar. Moreover, in a registered mortgage bond (Ext. 22) dated 9-6-36 executed by the Plaintiff himself it is unambiguously admitted that Khandava village was carved out from the Zeroity lands of Parlakimedi estate and granted as an inam to an ancestor of the Plaintiff known as Lokanadham Dora in the year 1823 by Maharani Sri Gajapati Pattamahadei. This admission in 1936, more than three years after the institution of the suit under appeal, is practically decisive on the question as to whether the inam is post-settlement inam pre-settlement inam. During the disturbances in Parlakimedi estate in 1832-34 one Mr. Russell, after putting down the disturbances took a steps for pacification of the country and submitted an exhaustive report to the Government dealing with the various service tenures created within the estate. He referred to fifteen new Mokhasas created by the zamindar (see para 133 of his report) and recommended that six of these Mokhasas should be continued inasmuch as Mokhasadars rendered useful service to the Government during the operations for restoration of law and order. Khandava village is one of those included in that list and the Dora in possession of that village was noted as Lokailadham Dora who was admittedly ancestor of the Plaintiff. Khandava village is one of those included in that list and the Dora in possession of that village was noted as Lokailadham Dora who was admittedly ancestor of the Plaintiff. Thus it seems well established that though the Doratanam in favour of Lokanadham Dora was created by the then Maharani of Parlakimedi in 1823 it was not resumed when Mr. Russell's operations were completed. But as the Dora rendered useful service to the British Government his tenure was recommended for confirmation. His recommendation was accepted by the Government and Lokanadham Dora thus continued in possession of the village. Some time in 1902 the question of the status of the Dora of Khandava came up for consideration before the Government (See Ext. 32) and in G.O. No. 38 dated 7-1-1909 it was recognised by all parties that Khandava was a post-settlement inam. I would, therefore, in agreement with both the lower Courts, hold that Khandava is a Dharmila inam created in favour of an ancestor of the Plaintiff in 1823 by the then Maharani of Parlakimedi. 6. A post-settlement inam is clearly outside the scope of Section 3(2) of the M.E.L. Act as amended from time to time and it is therefore unnecessary to discuss the provisions of that clause or the effect of the amendments made to it by Orissa Act XVII of 1947. 7. A Dharmila inam village may also be an estate as defined in Section 3(2) of the M.E.L. Act if it is held on a permanent under-tenure [see Clause (e) of that Sub-section.] Even if it is nab held on a permanent under-tenure it may become 'part of an estate' and its owner may become a 'landholder' as defined in Section 3(5) unless it can, be further shown hat the village was granted as a service tenure and the tenure still subsists a as to bring it under Clause (c) of the three Exceptions to 'ryoti land' as described in Section 3(16) of that Act. 8. The main question therefore to which this Court should now address itself is whether Khandava village was held by the Plaintiff as a permanent under-tenure. It is admitted by both parties that it was originally a service inam (known as Doratanam) granted for the purpose of rendering some sort of police duty and other miscellaneous duties in the locality. 8. The main question therefore to which this Court should now address itself is whether Khandava village was held by the Plaintiff as a permanent under-tenure. It is admitted by both parties that it was originally a service inam (known as Doratanam) granted for the purpose of rendering some sort of police duty and other miscellaneous duties in the locality. It is now well settled by a series of decisions that an irresumable Dharmila inam will be a permanent under-tenure within the meaning of Clause (e) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act, See AIR 1926 Mad 635 , (1989) II MLJ 901 and AIR 1945 Mad 305 . Hence the question for consideration is whether Khandava village is resumable or not. 9. It is true that the Plaintiff as the Doratanam of the village has been paying some Katuhadi (suit rent) to the Zamindar of Parlakimedi. But the question as to whether the Zamindar of Parlakimedi was entitled to resume the village was concluded by the decision of the Madras High Court in 1907 (See Exts. A and A-1) where it was held that as the service was clearly of a public character partaking of the nature of police duty, the inam was not resumable. This decision has concluded the question so far as the Zamindar of Parlakimedi is concerned. 10. Mr. P.V.B. Rao on behalf of the Appellant however urged that the question as to whether the village was resumable by he Government had not yet been decided and that consequently the aforesaid decision of the Madras High Court would not be a bar to the Plaintiff claiming that the village was resumable by the, Government inasmuch as the duties imposed on him as Dora were of a public nature somewhat akin to police duties. Mr. Rao fairly conceded that for nearly a century Government had never demanded any duties from the successive Doras of the village. But he urged that mere fail ore to perform the duties associated with a service tenure for any length of time would not suffice to how that the tenure was not resumable. 11. This necessarily involves a careful investigation of the history of the tenure since 1823. The materials for such investigation are somewhat meagre. But it appears from Mr. But he urged that mere fail ore to perform the duties associated with a service tenure for any length of time would not suffice to how that the tenure was not resumable. 11. This necessarily involves a careful investigation of the history of the tenure since 1823. The materials for such investigation are somewhat meagre. But it appears from Mr. Russell's report (already mentioned) that the Doratanam inam was primarily created for semi-military purposes by the then zamindar of Parlakimedi and the duties assigned to the Dora were partly of a police and partly of a military nature. On Mr. Russell's recommendation the inam was confirmed with Lokanadham Dora in 1834 by way of recognition for service rendered by him to the British Government in the pacification of the country. It was urged, however, that the inam was confirmed with him not only in lieu of past services (in which case it would be clearly irresumable) but it was confirmed partly in lieu of past services and partly because as Dora he was expected to render future services to the Government. On this point Russell's Report is not very clear. But from the report of the Inspector-General of Police to the Government of Madras dated the 6th June, 1861) the proceedings of the Board of Revenue of that year and the final orders of the Government (Ext. L) it appears that the Doras were rendering some sort of police duties though of a highly unsatisfactory nature. In para 10 of he report of the I.G. of Police it was observed that it was one of the duties of the Dora to maintain general security and prevent incursions of the Somaha from the neighbouring hills. But he also pointed out that as a class they were utterly unfaithful and useless for the preservation of order and peace and while recommending the creation of a regular police force for the district of Ganjam he stated as follows in para 18 of his report: The new police will supersede entirely the function of the Doratanam and the Tannah Peons (the surviving incumbents will be invited to join the force) and both these classes should at once be death with by the Inam Commissioner. As police they are worse than useless; and it is only sound policy o allow all these hereditary semi-military classes to merge into the peaceable agricultural population as speedily as possible. His report was accepted in its essentials by the Government in their G.O. No. 868 dated the 4th July 1861 so far as the creation of a regular police force in the district and the relieving of Doras of their police duties were concerned. 12. As regards enfranchisement of these Doratsnam inams, here are some interesting observations in the report of the I.G. of Police and of the Board of Revenue of 1861 which are worth pointing out. The I.G. of Police observed (see para 20) that though Kattubudi was payable by the Dorss o the zamindar of Parlakimedi the income received from the Doras for police services which they were expected to do in the locality was at the disposal of the Government having been excluded from the assets at the time of the permanent; settlement. Similarly, in the letter of the then Collector of Ganjam Mr. Forbes to the Secretary of Court of Wards, Fort Saint George, dated the 21st May, 1861 he recommended that the time was ripe for sweeping away the Doratanams and Tannahs and that the operation of the inam rules would be appropriate to the case and recommended that these may be enfranchised and no further police service claimed from the Doras. The Court of Wards, Madras, while forwarding his report to the Government observed (Para 11) that in 1855 also a similar proposal had been made. But the Government resolved in G.O. No. 385, Judicial Department, dated the 18th April, 1856, that quit-rent should not be touched during the lives of the present incumbents but directed that "the parties concerned should be informed that this concession was an act of grace and that the continuance of their favourable tenure would be contingent on their good behaviour. The Government's later order on the subject is contained in para 14 of G.O. No. 663 dated the 4th July, 1861. They stated that before passing final order on the subject they would await a special report from the Inam Commissioner on his operations in Ganjam district as to the extent in value of these Doratanams and Tannah Peons' inams and also what lapses have occurred among the 'present incumbents'. They stated that before passing final order on the subject they would await a special report from the Inam Commissioner on his operations in Ganjam district as to the extent in value of these Doratanams and Tannah Peons' inams and also what lapses have occurred among the 'present incumbents'. They further directed that till then these holdings should not be interfered with. 13. Thus from a close scrutiny of the official reports of 1861 it appears that from the time of Mr. Russell (1834) till 1861 these Doras were rendering some sort of unsatisfactory service and maintaining peace in the locality though perhaps only in name. Hence, when the inam was confirmed on Lokanadham Dora in 1834 it may be assumed that such confirmation was not only in lieu of past services but also in lien of future police services to be rendered by him. 14. Neither party has oared to produce before the Court the report of the Inam Commissioner dealing with Doratanams of Parlakimedi and hence this Court has no information as to how Khandava village was dealt with by the Inam Commissioner in 1864-66. There is no information also as bo what orders were subsequently passed by the Government on his report. In 1902, however, when the dispute between the Zemindar of Parlakimedi and the then Dora of Khandava village was about to be taken to law Courts a question arose as to whether the Government should intervene. This led to a correspondence between the then Collector of Ganjam, the Board of Revenue and the Government which was embodied in G.O. No. 88 dated the 7th January, 1902 (Ext. 22) which throws a flood of light as regards the nature of this tenure. The then Collector of Ganjam Mr. H.D. Taylor in his report stated: Though the inams were continued to the inamdars under the orders of Government, there is nothing to show whether Government the considered that it had any right to resume the same on alienation or failure to render future service. I am inclined to think that Government possesses no such claim. The Board of Revenue practically endorsed the Collector's report and stated that the Government have nothing to do either with the continuance or with the resumption of the inam in question. I am inclined to think that Government possesses no such claim. The Board of Revenue practically endorsed the Collector's report and stated that the Government have nothing to do either with the continuance or with the resumption of the inam in question. Government accepted the report of the Board and ordered that Government need not interfere in the negotiations between the zamindar and the inamdar. The result was that the litigation which went up to the Madras High Court was solely contested between the zamindar of Parlakimedi and the Inamdar. No other document subsequent to 1902 bearing on the subject of reasonability of the tenure by the Government has been filed by either party. 15. Thus from Mr. Russell's report, the proceedings of 1861 (Ext. L) and the proceedings of 1902 (Ext. 22) the following inference may be fairly made: The service inam of Khandava was created in 1823 by the zamindar of Parlakimedi for semi-military and police purposes. The inam was confirmed by the British Government on the report of Mr. Russell in 1834 partly in lien of past services secured to the Government and partly in lieu of future police services. In 1861 the Dora was relieved of all police duties and a regular police establishment was created throughout the district. At that time the question of enfranchising the inams, was raised. But the Government postponed their decision on the subject awaiting the report of the Inam Commissioner. As a matter of fact, in 1854-56 also the same question had been raised. But the Government were unwilling to enfranchise these Doratanam villages so long as the present incumbents behaved properly. From 1861 up to 1902 also no effort was made by the Government to enfranchise these inams even though they were fully aware that the inamdars were not rendering any service to the Government. On the other hand, in 1902 the Collector reported to the Government that in his opinion the tenure was not resumable and the Government practically accepted his report and declined to intervene in the litigation which subsequently ensued between the Inamdar and the Maharaja of Parlakimedi as regards the latter's right of resumption. Even when the Maharaja of Parlakimedi lost his suit in the High Court in 1907, Government never asserted their right to resume the tenure and the position to-day is practically as it was in 1861. 16. Even when the Maharaja of Parlakimedi lost his suit in the High Court in 1907, Government never asserted their right to resume the tenure and the position to-day is practically as it was in 1861. 16. On these facts, therefore, it may be held that the Government treated the inam as if it was irresumable from 1861 at any rate till the present day. A specific question about resuming (enfranchising) the inam was raised by the Collector and the I. G. of Police in 1861. But the Government refused to accept their suggestions and postponed their decision on the subject for some reason or other. Again, in 1902 when the question of resumption of the inams was directly under their consideration they left the question to be fought out between the zamindar on the one hand and the inamdar on the other. It is true that mere non-performance of service will not suffice to show that the service inams not resumable. But such non-performance for nearly a century occupied with the deliberate abstention of the Government from taking steps for resumption of the tenure even though this question was specifically mooted before them first in 1856, again in 1861 and again in 1902 would justify the inference that the Government acted on the assumption that the inam was not resembles. It will therefore be too late to say that there is still some residue of public duty which the Dora is expected to perform and that his tenure is resumable. The opinion of the Collector of Ganjam in 1902 based on all the materials available before him (which are not available before the Court now) to the effect that Government have no right to resume the village even if the inamdar failed to render future service should be given great weight. 17. I would, therefore, in agreement with both the Courts, hold that the village Khandava is not resumable even by the Government. Consequently, it is an irresumable service inam and as such is a permanent under-tenure within the meaning of Clause (e) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the M.E.L. Act. The owner of that tenure is therefore a landholder as defined in Section 3(6) of the Act and the land will he ryoti land as defined in Section 3(16) of the Act. The owner of that tenure is therefore a landholder as defined in Section 3(6) of the Act and the land will he ryoti land as defined in Section 3(16) of the Act. The Exception described in Clause (0) of that Sub-section will not obviously apply to irresumable service tenures and it will therefore be academic to consider whether notionally the original service tenure orated in 1823 may be deemed to still subsist so as to bring the village within the scope of that Exception. 18. The Respondents being holders of ryoti lands under the Plaintiff who is a land-holder are clearly ryots who have acquired occupancy rights and cannot be evicted by the Civil Court. 19. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs throughout. Final Result : Dismissed