JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is an appeal by the Plaintiff against the decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Berhampur, dismissing his suit for a declaration that village Ullavabhadra, within P.S. Parlakhimedi, of Ganjam district was an irresumable Doratanam inam village, in the possession of the Plaintiff's family all along and that the action of the Government in resuming it, in G.O. No. 1425 of 1927 as modified by G.O. No. 1481 of 1928, was illegal, ultra vires, and for other consequential reliefs. 2. Doratanam inams within the ambit of Parlakhimedi Zamindari in Ganjam district appear to have been originally granted to person known as Doras mainly for the purpose of preventing the discussion or aboriginal tribes like Khonds and Savaras from the adjacent hills into Parlakhimedi plains. Some of these grants were made, in recognition of this service, long before the Settlement of Parlakhimedi Zamindari with the Maharaja of Parlakhimedi by virtue of Regulation XXV of 1802. But during the rebellion of 1832-36 which took place in the zamindari some of the Doras who sided with the rebels lost their inams by confiscation, and they were subsequently settled by the then Collector Mr. Russell and other officers with new Doras. The Plaintiff's ancestor was one of the Doras with whom the lands were settled sometime in 1835 by Mr. Inglis the then Sub-Collector of Berhampur, after the flight of the previous Dora and his punishment for disloyalty. But this new Doratanam land was also the subject matter of an enquiry during the inam proceedings of 1862-67 and Ext. A-1 (2) is an extract of the Fair Inam Register. The Government appear to have all along treated this inam as a resumable inam as it was a grant made in lieu of wages for Police service though in 1892 and on some earlier occasions they refuse to resume the inam notwithstanding strong pressure from the local officers. Eventually, however, in 1927-28 the in am was resumed and it is admitted that the lands were re-settled with the Appellants family on a ryoti basis on payment of fair rent prevailing in the locality. 3. Eventually, however, in 1927-28 the in am was resumed and it is admitted that the lands were re-settled with the Appellants family on a ryoti basis on payment of fair rent prevailing in the locality. 3. The main question for consideration in this litigation is whether the inam was settled with the Plaintiff's ancestor in lieu of wages for Police service rendered by him in preventing incursion of wild tribes into the plains of Parlakhimedi or else whether it was a grant of land burdened with service. If it was a grant of the former type it would ordinarily be resumable, but if it was of the latter type, prima facie it will be irresumable unless there are special provisions in the grant justifying such resumption. 4. The Doratanam inams of Parlakhimedi Zamindari have been the subject matter of previous litigations, one of which was decided by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in First Appeals 20 and 30 of 1937 where the entire question relating to the origin of that tenure, the nature of that tenure and the right of Government to resume the same, has been fully discussed. Most of the documents on which the Appellant has relied in this litigation, were also exhibited in that case and considered by their Lordships of the Patna High Court. Though that judgment will not operate as res-judicata in the present case as the parties are not the same, its admissibility u/s 13 of the Evidence Act is beyond question. Moreover, the reasons given by their Lordships of the Patna High Court in that decision in construing all the relevant documents a indicating that the Doratanam tenure was a grant in lieu of wages for the services which the Doras were required to perform for the Government, would apply with equal force and, with respect, we are inclined to adopt those reasons. Mr. K.S.R. Murty for the Appellant has not been able to satisfy us as why we should take a different view. Mr. K.S.R. Murty for the Appellant has not been able to satisfy us as why we should take a different view. As pointed out by their Lordships of the Patna High Court in the aforesaid decision, relying on Secretary of State for India in Council v. Raja Sobhanadri Appa Rao Bahadur 64 I.A. 227 (P.C.) the right of the Government to resume lands that were settled on favourable quit rents at the time of making permanent settlement with the Zamindar of Parlakhimedi was expressly saved in Section 4 of Madras Regulation No. XXV of 1802 and this may be taken as fairly decisive-apart from other considerations on the general question of the right of Government to resume the tenure. 5. We do not wish to repeat all the reasons given by the learned judges of the Patna High Court in the aforesaid decision and, adopting the same, we could hold that the lower court was justified in holding that the Doratanam inam in question was resumable. The suit was rightly dismissed, but in the circumstances we do not think that the Appellant should be saddled with costs. At the time of bringing the suit the Zamindar of Parlakhimedi was in possession of the Estate, but subsequently the Estate was taken over by the State of Orissa, under the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act. This is a changed circumstance which, to some extent, justifies not granting costs against the Appellant. 6. The appeal is therefore dismissed, but without the costs of this Court. The lower Court's order for costs will, however, remain. Barman, J. 7. I agree. 8. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed