MAHISAGAR BHATHA COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED BORSAD Vs. THAKORE SHREE JAGDEVSINHI RAMSINHJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals by grant of special leave are directed against the common judgment of the High court of Gujarat dated 6/04/1978. This litigation has a long chequered history but we would succinctly narrate such facts which are necessary for the disposal of these appeals. Thakore Shree Jagdevsinhi since dead and now represented through his heirs and legal representatives (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) was the ruler of Umeta State and he was also a registered Talukdar and owner of five villages, including village Kothiyakhad in the State of Gujarat. This village Kothiyakhad is situated on the bank of River Mahi. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he was the owner of suit land 'a' Kothiyakhad Bhatha bearing survey No. 247 admeasuring 100 acres and 38 gunthas and of landed property plot 'b' referred to asshree jagdevsinhi RAMSINHJI (Kasliwal, J. ) Mahmedpura land and for recovery of possession and for rendition of accounts of income from 1/11/1952 till the date of handing over possession. The plaintiff had claimed the suit properties as his personal properties as a Talukdar and in the alternative it was alleged that the suit lands were Bhatha lands beyond the purview of the Bombay Talukdar Tenure Abolition Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as Talukdari Abolition Act') which came into operation w. e. f. 15/08/1950. The alternative case was put up by the plaintiff to meet the allegation of the State government that the suit property lot 'a' had vested in the State by virtue of Section 6 of the Talukdari Abolition Act. The plaintiff s case in this regard was that the princely State of Umeta had merged in the Union of India and at that time by a merger agreement dated 24/05/1948 five villages were allowed as private properties of the plaintiff and the suit lands situated in one of such village Kothiyakhad remained unaffected by the provisions of the Talukdari Abolition Act.

(2.) The trial court by judgment dated 30/03/1971 declared that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit land survey No. 247 admeasuring 100 acres, 38 gunthas and also granted a decree for delivering the possession of this land and also held that the plaintiff was entitled to accounts for this land. The suit as regards Mahmedpura Bhatha land 'b' was dismissed. It may be mentioned that the State of Gujarat allotted the suit lands to Mahisagar Bhatha Cooperative Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited, Gambhira (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society') during the pendency of this litigation and as such the Society was also impleaded as defendant in the suit. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial court. First Appeal No. 787 of 1971 was filed by the State of Gujarat, First Appeal No. 799 of 1971 by the Society and First Appeal No. 834 of 1971 by the plaintiff. The High court disposed of all the three appeals by a common judgment dated 6/04/1978. The High court dismissed the First Appeal Nos. 787 of 1971 and 799 of 1971 except setting aside the decree for taking accounts. Subject to the above variation, the decree passed by the trial court for declaring ownership and possession in respect of land survey No. 247, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge was confirmed. In Appeal No. 834 of 1971 filed by the plaintiff against the dismissal of his claim for Mahmedpura Bhatha land, the High court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree of the trial court.

(3.) The State of Gujarat and the Society have now come in appeal to this court but no appeal has been filed by the plaintiff, as such we are only concerned with the Kothiyakhad Bhatha land of survey No. 247.