LAXMAN PURSHOTTAM PIMPUTKAR Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Bombay affirming the decree of the District Judge, Thana, setting aside the decree in favour of plaintiff-appellant.

(2.) The relevant facts which are no longer in dispute are these:The plaintiff's family are grantees of the Patilki Watan of some villages in Umbergaon taluka of the Thana District of Maharashtra, including the village of Solsumbha, Maroli and Vavji. Defendants 2 to 4 also belong to the family of the plaintiff. The plaintiff represents the senior most branch of the family while the defendants 2 to 4 represent other branches. The dispute with which we are concerned in this appeal relates to the Patilki of Solsumbha. Under the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 (Bombay Act No. III of 1874) the person who actually perform the duty of a hereditary office for the time being is called an Officiator. It is common ground that the Officiator had been selected from the branch of the plaintiff from the year 1870 in which year the propositus Krishna Rao Pimputkar died. After his death he was succeeded by his eldest son Vasudev upon whose death in 1893 his eldest son Sadashiv was the Officiator. Sadashiv died in 1901 and was succeeded by Purshottam, who was Officiator till the year 1921 when, because of the disqualification incurred by him, a deputy was appointed in his place. After the death of Purshottam in 1940 in son the plaintiff-appellant Laxman became the Officiator.

(3.) In the year 1914 the descendants of Krishnarao, who were till then joint, effected a partition of the family property which consisted of Inam and Watan lands in various villages including the villages of Solsumbha, Maroli and Vavji. The document embodying the partition in Ex. 49. Under that partition lands which had so far been assigned for remuneration of the Patilki of Solsumbha were allotted to the branch of the defendants while some other lands were given to the branch of the plaintiff. It would appear that Purshottam had not subscribed to the partition deed in the beginning but later on he appears to have acquiesced in it and apparently for this reason it has been held by the Courts below that he was a party to the partition. It may be mentioned that after Purshottam had incurred a disqualification, the deputies who acted for him were not allowed to take possession of lands of Solsumbha which are now in dispute in spite of the objections raised by these persons. They were instead allowed a remuneration of Rs. 240/- per annum which was to be paid by the member of the family in possession of the Watan lands. This position continued till 1946.