GOVERNMENT OF BOMBAY Vs. GANPAT MANOHAR KULKARNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question in this Letters Patent appeal is whether the widow of a deceased watandar whose name has been entered as representative watandar is a holder of the watan within the meaning of Section 15 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act so that she is competent to enter into an agreement for commutation of services under that section.

(2.) THE facts so far as it is necessary to state them are as follows. THEre is a kulkarni watan in the village of Mohari in the Ahmednagar District. In 1914 this watan was registered as regards a twelve annas share in the name of Gangubai, the widow of Manohar, and as to the remaining four annas share in the name of one Narayan Madhav. We are only concerned with the twelve annas share of the watan. On January 24, 1914, commutation of the kulkarni service was effected under the provisions of Section 15 by agreement between Gangubai and the Collector. Section 15 provides that the Collector may, with the consent of the holder of a watan, given in writing, relieve him and his heirs and successors in perpetuity of their liability to perform service upon such conditions as may be agreed upon by the Collector and such holder. It is not now disputed that the formalities prescribed by the Act in this behalf under Section 73 were complied with. THE only question is whether Gangubai was competent to enter into the agreement, that is to say, whether she was a holder.

(3.) THREE cases are referred to, the case where there is a single owner, the case where there are several joint owners and the settlement takes place with all of them, and the case where there are several persons beneficially interested and the agreement takes place with their representative. In this case at the material time there was only one person, viz. Gangubai, who had any interest in the twelve annas share of the watan with which we are concerned. The learned Advocate General, who appears for the appellant, the Secretary of State, does not suggest that the latter part of the definition has any application here. He says that Gangubai was the owner within the meaning of the definition, and he says further that as the definition is not exhaustive it is not necessary to show that Gangubai was the owner. She was the holder of the watan inasmuch as it was in her possession and no other person could be described as the holder, and therefore the definition should be taken to apply to her.