VINAYAK SHRIPATRAO PATWARDHAN Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit giving rise to this appeal was filed by the plaintiff originally against Miraj State for the following reliefs :

(2.) PENDING the suit, the Miraj State came to be merged in the Bombay province and the State or Bombay was substituted in place of the Miraj State. The State of Bombay, therefore, will hereafter be called the defendant. The defendant put in the written statement (Ext. 70) and raised a number of contentions, which are summarised as follows :

(3.) APPROPRIATE issues were framed. But, in the first instance, Mr. H. S. Patil, who heard the suit, decided a few of the issues, which were treated as preliminary issues. Mr. Patil held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the dispute in suit. He also held that the Bombay State was liable to render accounts in respect of the items claimed by the plaintiff so far as the management of the property since 1916 was concerned. At the same time, he took the view that the grant being Jadid, that is to say, a grant made by the Miraj Ruler, was liable to be revoked and no relief could be claimed for continuance of the rights under the said grant. After the above decision, further issues were framed by Mr. R. K. Saklikar, the successor of Mr, Patil, and he heard and decided those issues. The principal issue framed by Mr. Saklikar was as to whether the plaintiff's claim for the accounts was in time, and he held that the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation. Consequently, he dismissed the suit with costs. It is from that decision that the plaintiff has come up in appeal.