Vol XXXVII. Bombay seeies
Download 47.48 Kb.Pdf ko'rish
- Bu sahifa navigatsiya:
- C h an daV A R K A E , J
- SniVBAM N aesingbao V. M ahadev N a e a y a n
- M ALKAPPA BiK DOD GHANBASAPGOUDiTAND OTnERS (oriqinai, Pr.AiNTiFPs), AppelCants
sliould be paid out of the money so deposited, they can take
steps to get the Act amended.
Therefore there will be an order in terms of the consent
decree between claimants 2 and 3 and the Improvement Tsust.
Costs of Government, exclusive of poundage and feesf awarded
against claimants Nos. 2 and 3, to be paid out of the money to
which they are now entitled.
Attorney for Government: Mr. E. F. Nicholson.
Attorneys for the claimants Nos.kS and Q Messrs. Nanu,
Hormusji c& Co.
Attorneys for claimant No. 4 : Messrs. Crawford, Brown
c q u isitio n
e s t o n j i
e h a n g ie
o d i
.Before Mr. Justice Chandavarkar mid Mr. Jiistice Batchelor.
o b iq in a l
l a in t if e
e e e n d a s t
es p o n d e n t
V&tilld vatan— Courtsale of tlie mtan lands in execution of decree against holder of*>
vatan—Levy of full assessment by Collector—Character of vatan land not changed
by the levy— Suit by next holder of vatan wihii^i twelve years of the death of his
The plaintiff’s fatlicr liold the laxad in'disputo as pdtilki vatan which were sold in
1875 to the defendant at a Court-sale held in execution of a decree. The Collector
thereupon levied full assc^ment on the land and assigned the assessment for
remuneration for service. The plaintiS’s father died in 1905. In 1909 the plaintiff
brought a suit against the defendant to recover possession of the land. The lower
Courts dismissed the suit on the grounds that the land had ceased to be vatan
and that the suit was brought beyond time. The plaintiff appealed ;—
Collector levied full aasessruent and altered the mode of remuneration.
Held, also, that the plaintiff’s suit was in time, since on the death of the
plaintiff’s father in 1905, the plaintiff beq^me entitled to the land as the next
holder of the vatan, and the defendant’s interest in the land as the vendea of the
right, title and interest of tlie plaintiff’s father came to an end.
Second Appeal No. 586 of 1911.
THE INDIAN LAW EEPOETS.
h i v h a m
a k s in g k a o
a r a t a n
S e c o n d
appeal from the decision of V. M. Ferrers, District
Judge of Satara, confirming the decree passed by B. B. Gogte,
Subordinate Judge of Karad.
Spii^ to recover possession of laud.
The 12nd in dispute was held as pdtilki mtan by the
plaintiffs father. In execution of a decree against him the land
was sold at a Conrt-sale to the defendant in 1875. In conse
quence of the sale the Collector levied full assessment on the
land and assigned the ass(?ssment as remuneration for service.
The plaintiffs father died in 1905.
In 1909, the plaintiff brought this suit to recover possession
of the land from th^ defendant.
The defendant contended inter alia that the land had ceased
to be vatan on account of full assessment levied on it and that
the suit was barred by limitation.
The Subordinate Judge dismi^ed the suit, holding that the
lands'?iad ceased to be
and that the suit was barred by
On appeal, this decree was confirmed by the District Judge.
The plaintiff appealed to the High Court.
K. N. Koyajee, for the ^appellant:—The lower Courts were
wrong in holding that the land^iad ceased to be vatan property.
A demand of fulf assessment dooM ot create any /jhange al title :
Baghavendracharya^^K The Collector can, xmder
section 23 of the Vatan Act, increase the^ emoluments of the
officiator to any extent, and can, therefore, levy full assessment
for the purpose: see also Bai Sioraj v. Government of Bomhay^^K
Even where services have ceased to be demanded under the
Gordon Settlement, vatan property does not cease to be vatan:
see Appaji Bapuji v. Ecshav ShamravH and Bhau v. Bam-
of the defendant did not commence until the ^eath of the
plaintiff’s father in 1905„
(1) (1900) 24 Bom, m .
(2) (1871) 8 Bom, H. 0. R. (A. 0. J.) 83,
(3) (1890) 15 Bora. 13.
W (1895) 20 Bom. 423.
fonnd it as a fact that the property is not a vatan. It might
have been mtan in 187^ but not since then. The defendant
has been in adverse possession since the date of the sale ipi 1872.
Under the ruling in Badhabai and Bmichandra Konlier v.
Anantrav Bhagvant Deshpande^^ adverse possession for twelve
years during the life-time of one holder of service vatan lands is,
a bar to succeeding holders.
of the alienor, and the adverse poisession against the alienor’s
son, not against the alienor himself, was held to be a bar to
the suit of the alienor’s grandson. AKenation during the
life-time of the alienor has always been held to be good.
The Conrts below tjave held that the
land in dispute ceased to be vatan after the Collector had
levied the full amount of assessment on it and assigned that
amount as remuneration for service. But there is no provision
in the Vatan Act or any^other law to support that view. It
has been held by this Court that a vatan continues in that
character even when the Gordon Settlement has been applied
to it and service has ceased to be demanded as a consequence
of that settlement: Appaji Bapuji^ v. Keshav Shamrav^^^ and
Bamohandrarao^^K , In 2he present sase it is
conceded by, the learned pleader"^for the ’’ respondent, and
indeed the Courts below have found, that the laad in
dispute had been vatan before in 1872 it was sold by the
Court to the defendant in execution of a decree against the
person who was then the holder of the vaian. The Collector
levied the full assessment and assigned it for remuneration for
service because of the Gourt-sale. But the land as vatan
did not lose its character merely because the Collector altered
the mode of remuneration.
If then & e land continued as %atan after the Court-sale in
favour of the defendant,* he .took merely the right, title and
(1) (1885) 9 Bom. 198.
m (1890) 15 Bom. 13.
(3) (1B9S) 50 Bom. m at p. 427.
THE INDIAN L A ^ EEPOETS.
a e a y a n
interest of his judgment-debtor and on the death of the latter
in 1905 his right under the Conrt-sale ceased. It was then that
the plaintiff as the next holder of the mtan
becmne entitled to
the'property and this suit brought within twelve years from
1905^ is in time.
That is in accordance with Badhahai and
v. Anayitrav Bhagvant Deshpande^^^
Bamgauda Un Hirgauda
v. Gopal 8adashiv'^\
Decree reversed and claim awarded with costs throughout
E . E.
(1) (1885) 9 Bom. 198.
(2) (1898) P. J. p. 30.
Before Mr. Justice Chandavarkar and Mr. Jtistice Batchelor.
M ALKAPPA BiK DOD GHANBASAPGOUDiTAND OTnERS (oriqinai, Pr.AiNTiFPs),
M U D K A P P A bin BASAPPA M U D IG A V K A B and otuehs
(OBIQINAL DeFJSNDANIS), EeSPONDENTS. *
Limitation Act (X Y of 1877), Schedule II, Articles 127, Id2—A co-imrcener in posses-'
sion of joint lands on behalf of all co-parceners—Alienation by the co-parceners
without hnowhdge of the rest—Adverse possession of his vendee.
^ Coitain lands belonging to tlio joint family of plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 wcro
in the possession of defendant No. I
OU Lclialf of tlio family. In 1880, lio alienated
them to defendant No, ^ but romfdned in, possession on oxoouting a ront-note in
favour of the vendoo. I'ho^laintiffHrbroughlf a suit in 190G to recover by rprtition
their share in tho lands. The defendant No. 2 pleaded in defonoe his advorao
possession of the lands from 1880.
before tho,alienation being for him
self and his co-parceners and being thus of a fiduciary character, it could not begin
to be adverse to the co-parceners in the absence of intimation convoyed by him to
them that ho intended to exclude them.
S e c o n d
appeal from the decision of B. H. Leggatt, District
Judge of Dharwar, reversing tho decree passed by K. Gr.
Kulkarni, Subordinate Judge at Havcri,
The lands in dispute belonged to the joint family consisting
of the plaintiffs and the defendant N
. 1. They \vere in tho
possession of the defendant No. 1 bn behalf •'of the family. In
* Second Appeal No. 63 of 1912.
Download 47.48 Kb.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham:
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling