BHIMRAO GURURAO DESHPANDE Vs. PRALHAD SUBBARAO MUTALIK DESHPANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that hag been referred to the Full Bench lies within a very narrow compass. It relates to the interpretation of the provisions of the Bombay Pargana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act. 1950. (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It became necessary to refer this question to the Full Bench, because, the provisions of this Act have received two different interpretations which are inconsistent with each other.

(2.) For the purpose of a proper appreciation of the questions involved in the case, it is necessary to set out the few admitted facts: The lands in question are situated in Aralikatte, Aminabhavi and Karadiguddi villages in the district of Dharwar and formed part of a paragana watan of which one Nareswamyrao was the Watandar. He had two sons by name Swamy Rao and Guru Rao and there was a partition between them in or about the year 1844. The lands in question were allotted to the share of Swamy Rao. As Swamy Rao's branch became extinct, Bhima Rao and Rama Rao, the two sons of Guru Rao, became entitled to the rights in the properties allotted to the share of Swamy Rao. It appears nearly 150 years back the properties in question were given away to the respondents' predecessors-in-interest for Mutalik and priestly service and since then the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners have not been in possession of the lands. However, on the coming into force of the Act. petitioners made application for regrant. The sole basis for claiming regrant of the lands is that they belong to the watan family and thus are entitled to regrant. Having lost their case before the Revenue authorities the petitioners have filed these writ petitions. The case of the respondents in W. P. No. 2409 of 1966 is that the two lands in question had been granted by Naroswamyrao to their ancestors in lieu of the Mutalik service rendered by them. The case of the respondents in W. P. 2410 of 1966 is that the three other lands were given to their ancestors by Naroswamyrao for rendering priestly service. Their case, therefore, is that they and their predecessors-in-interest wore in lawful possession of the lands in question from the time of Tippu Sultan, who died in 1799, and that they are entitled to continue to remain in possession of the same. Their further case is that on the coming into force of the Act. the members of the family of the Watandar do not become entitled to the regrant of the lands which had been alienated long back. The claim of the petitioners has been negatived and so they have come up before this court with these writ petitions.

(3.) The submission made on behalf of the .petitioners before the Division Bench was that having regard to the decision of this Court in Rango Annaji Desh Kulkarni v. Annacharya Narasimhacharya, (1965) 2 Mya LJ 685 their claim had been improperly rejected. The respondents however relied upon the judgment in Subhadrabai v. Bhimabai, (C. P. No. 79 of 1961 decided on 14-11-1962 (Mys)). The Division Bench noticed the conflict of views on the question and was of the view that the decision in Subhadrabai's case laid down the law correctly. In these circumstances, the Division Bench referred the following two questions for answer:--