KANAKPRABHADEVI NARPATSINHJI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the plaintiffs' Civil Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29-2-1980 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Ahmedabad (Rural), at Narol in Special Civil Suit No. 9 of 1978 whereby the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed with costs.

(2.) The plaintiffs, four in number, i.e. four daughters of Jayvant Kunwar (mother) and Jayvant Sinhji (father) filed Special Civil Suit on 2nd February, 1978 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Ahmedabad (Rural), at Narol. They came with the case that their mother Jayvant Kunwar who was known as Rani Sahiba had become the full and absolute owner of the agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 252/3, 254 Part, 262, 501, 678 Part. 320 Part and 571 Part situated within the sim of village Utelia in Taluka Dholka and after the death of their mother Rani Sahiba, the agricultural lands as above devolved upon them and they as her heirs became the full and natural owners of the aforesaid lands. Besides declaration that they had become the full and absolute owners as aforesaid, they claimed a further declaration in the suit that the name of defendant No. 3 namely - Shri Mukundlal Sheth, Advocate of Dholka had been wrongly entered into the revenue records in respect of the lands as aforesaid and that the entry to this effect in the revenue records was invalid, illegal and inoperative. A permanent injunction was also sought against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., the State of Gujarat and the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Dholka restraining them from resorting to any activities of invasion over their rights of the suit lands and from interfering with the possession of the suit lands in any manner.

(3.) Late Jaysinhji Sursinhji was the father of the plaintiffs and the husband of Rani Sahiba. He was the Talukadar of village Utelia. The rule of primogeniture was prevalent amongst the Talukadars and there was a family custom to grant 'Jivai' lands to the wife of the Talukadar or 'Gadipati' and to other female members of the family who were otherwise not entitled to inherit the properties of Talukadars. The lands which were granted for maintenance of the wife or other female members of the family were known as 'Jivai' lands meant for the maintenance of the ladies and such properties were kept apart exclusively for their maintenance. Initially, the lands which were given to Rani Sahiba for her maintenance as 'Jivai' lands by her husband Jaysinhji Talukadar did create a limited interest in favour of Rani Sahiba as per the then Hindu custom in vogue, but after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, by operation of Sec. 14 thereof, the plaintiffs' mother Rani Sahiba who had a limited interest in the 'Jivai' lands became the full owner and her death, the plaintiffs being the daughters inherited the suit lands and became the owners of the lands as aforesaid. It is the case of the plaintiffs that after the suit lands were kept apart as 'Jivai' lands in favour of their mother, she was put in exclusive possession of these lands and these lands stood in her name in the 'Jivai Khata' and according to them. thereafter the suit lands were held by her as the wife of the Talukadar, but as the owner thereof and the Talukadar Jaysinhji acted only as a Trustee to manage the affairs of the plaintiffs' mother's land. He used to collect the income and hand over the same to the plaintiffs' mother. While the plaintiffs' father Jaysinhji was alive, the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 came into force and the proceedings under the Ceiling Act were initiated by the State against the lands of their father Jaysinhji. In these proceedings under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960, the lands as aforesaid were also erroneously considered to be the lands of Talukadar Jaysinhji by the Mamlatdar and A.L.T., for the purpose of finding out the surplus lands. Against such a decision of the concerned Mamlatdar and A.L.T., an appeal was preferred but the same was dismissed. A revision application was also preferred before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal but the same was also rejected. Therefore, Special Civil Application No. 2121 of 1979 was preferred before the High Court and that too was rejected on 8-11-1976 by the single Bench. In fact, the Agricultural Lands Tribunal had passed an order on 13th June, 1968 but before that on 19th May, 1968, the Talukadar Jaysinhji died. The case of the plaintiffs is that in view of the fact that Shri Jaysinhji had died on 19th May, 1968 even before the passing of the order dated 13th June, 1968 by the A.L.T., the decision of the A.L.T., after the death of the Talukadar was illegal; the suit lands, were kept as 'Jivai' lands and therefore, the A.L.T., the Collector and the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal were also in error in holding the suit lands to be surplus lands under the Act. The plaintiffs' case is that in fact the Act was not applicable to the suit lands as the same were 'Jivai' lands and whereas the suit lands were not really the lands of Talukadar, i.e. the plaintiffs' father, the plaintiffs' mother became the owner of these lands. The grievance was also raised that neither plaintiffs nor their mother were made parties in the proceedings under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act and so the declaration by the Government that the suit lands were surplus lands under the Ceiling Act was not binding upon them and hence the order passed under the Ceiling Act was bad in the eye of law and the entire proceedings under the Ceiling Act after the demise of the plaintiffs' father were null and void, yet the Government tried to implement the order and took away the suit lands under an illegal order and thereby their rights, titles and interests were injured by the implementation of the order. Their rights, titles and interests were also not considered by the A.L.T., the Collector and the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and also by the High Court, and therefore, they filed the present suit for the reliefs as aforesaid on 2nd April, 1978 alleging that the defendant No. 3 had got these lands mutated in the revenue records illegally, he was also joined as a party to the suit.