DATTATRAYA VISHNU DABHOLKAR Vs. SADASHIV SHIVRAM NISAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two appeals by the defendants against a decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Ahmednagar with appellate powers in a suit relating to a share in the villages of Akolner and Khedle Parmanand in the Ahmednagar District. The facts are briefly these. Vishnu Moreshwar Dabholkar and his brother Janardhan, who were the owners of a two annas share in the village of Akolner and a six annas share in the village of Khedle Parmanand, mortgaged their share along with other property; to Sadashiv Shivram, who is respondent No.1 in these appeals. This mortgage was in January, 1915. In 1920, a suit was brought on the mortgage against the two mortgagors and their sons, among whom was Dattatraya Vishnu Dabholkar, who is respondent No.2 in appeal No.293 and the appellant in appeal No.187. A decree was passed by consent in 1921 for an amount of Rs. 32,000 and odd. Eventually the mortgaged property was put to sale and purchased by Sadashiv. The latter made applications to the revenue authorities to get his name entered in the place of Vishnu Moreshwar in the village records, and to get his share of the amount paid to him by the village officers. THESE applications were refused. The appeals made to the superior revenue authorities and to Government were unsuccessful, and accordingly this suit was filed in December, 1930.

(2.) FOR our purposes it will be sufficient to state the reliefs claimed in the suit. They were, firstly, a declaration that the shares in the two villages are of the ownership of the plaintiff Sadashiv by right of purchase; secondly, a declaration that the name of defendant No.2, Dattatraya Vishnu, whose name was entered in the records on the death of his father in 1926, should be removed and the name of the plaintiff entered instead as the owner of the shares in the villages. Alternatively, it was prayed that Dattatraya's name might be retained nominally and the plaintiff's name entered as the purchaser of the shares. It was further prayed that the amount of plaintiff's share should be paid to him directly by the village officers and that defendant No.1, i. e. the Secretary of State, should be requested to give proper and necessary orders to the village officers in respect of the plaintiff's management of the villages. It was further asked that a sum of Rs. 2,500, which had been collected and was held in the treasury, should be paid to the plaintiff.

(3.) IT will be convenient to mention here the position taken up by Government in this case. IT supports the other appellant as to the suit being barred by the Revenue Jurisdiction Act. IT contends, however, that the grants in question are personal inam and not saranjam. IT has not contended that a certificate is necessary under the Pensions Act, and it has not disputed the plaintiff's right to get the revenue from defendant No.2 after it has been paid to the latter in due course from the Government treasuries.