LAWS(BOM)-1943-7-3

LAKHAJI DALJI GARASIA Vs. KUBERDAS HARGOVINDAS MODI

Decided On July 13, 1943
LAKHAJI DALJI GARASIA Appellant
V/S
KUBERDAS HARGOVINDAS MODI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first five out of this group of six appeals arise out of suits filed by the holders of lands in the village of Sahijpur Bogha in Ahmedabad District against the inamdar of that village. THE lands involved in these appeals are chakariatnakra, that is to say service lands free of assessment. THE plaintiffs first claimed in their plaints that they were permanent tenants of the lands in their respective possession and were not liable to be evicted by the inamdar. THE inamdar contended that all the lands were service lands liable to be resumed at his pleasure. After his written statements were put in. the plaintiffs amended their plaints and admitting that the lands were their chakariatnakra lands not liable to assessment, they contended that they and their predecessors in-title had never rendered any service, that they were no longer liable to render service and that the inamdar had no power to resume them. THEy, therefore, claimed a declaration that they were the absolute owners of the lands in their possession and an injunction permanently restraining the inamdar from evicting them. THE inamdar contended that as the lands had been given for service, he had a right to resume them either on their refusal to render service or on their services being dispensed with. THE trial Court upheld the plaintiffs' claim and declared that they were the absolute owners of the chakariat lands in their possession. THE learned District Judge reversed all the decrees and dismissed the plaintiffs' suits.

(2.) APPEAL No.384 arises out of a suit filed by the inamdar for recovery of possession of Survey No.342 at Sahijpur Bogha together with past and future mesne profits, on the ground that it was a ravania chakariat land, that it was resumable on discontinuance of service, that it had been resumed by the levy of double the assessment during the management of the village by the Talukdari Settlement Officer and that thereby the defendants who were in possession of the land had become his annual tenants or tenants at will. The defendants claimed that the land being chakariat inam it was not liable to be resumed, that by the levy of double the assessment the land had not ceased to be a chakariat land nor had they become the inamdar's annual tenants and that the inamdar had no right to evict them. The trial Court held that the defendants had become the annual tenants of the inamdar since double the assessment began to be levied from them and decreed the inamdar's claim. The learned District Judge took the same view and confirmed the decree of the trial Court.

(3.) AFTER the death of Mirza Najaf Ali Khan, to whom the sanad of 1364 had been granted, his son Mirza Aftab Husain succeeded to the inam, and as he was a minor, the village was managed by the Talukdari Settlement Officer on behalf of the Court of Wards from 1903 to 1915. On attaining, majority he first leased the village to Sheth Maneklal Mansukhbhai and in 1924 he sold it to him for Rs. 55,000. The present inamdar Kuberdas purchased it from him in 1930 for Rs. 59,999. According to the sanad, the full assessment of the village was Rs. 2,002-12-8 out of which the quit rent had to be paid. It is, therefore, argued that the price paid for the village indicates that the purchaser must have expected to realise only the assessment from the village and that the price would not have been so low if the soil also was included. In view of the attitude taken up by the tenants, litigation must have been anticipated, and it is not strange that the village did not fetch an adequate price, and the low price paid cannot be attributed to the knowledge that the inamdar was a grantee of only the royal share of the revenue and not of the soil. From the other circumstances already pointed out, I hold that he is a grantee of the soil.