VENKATRAO Vs. HANMANTH RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the defendant's appeal in a suit brought by the respondent for a declaration of title to the Mali Patelgi Watan of Kotigiri situate in the then Jagir village of Chitgoppa. The case set up by the respondent was that the disputed Watan was his family property, and that the Jagirdar without any justifiable cause had deprived him of the Watan. The defence raised by the appellant, on the contrary, was that the Watan was never the family property of the respondent and that the Jagirdar was fully competent to appoint him as Mali Patel. The further plea was that the suit as framed was not maintainable.

(2.) The trial Court, while holding against the respondent on merits, dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit was not maintainable. The District Court of Bidar, on appeal held otherwise and decreed the suit. The matter came up before our brother Mohammad Ahmed Ansari, J., and he has referred the case to Bench in view of the importance of the question involved in this appeal. The question that falls for determination is whether the Court can declare a right to a Watan in a Jagir against the incumbent freshly appointed by the Jagirdar or whether the remedy of the aggrieved person lies against the Jagirdar in damages. This question had been considered by the erstwhile Judicial Committee of Hyderabad in Seshagiri Rao v. Rama Rao, 33 Dec. L.R. 685 , wherein it has been held that if a Jagirdar dismisses any of his village officials and appoints another person, the remedy of the dismissed person lies against the Jagidar by way of damages and not against the incumbent.

(3.) The Advocate for the respondent relied upon an unreported Judgment of the Supreme Court in Linga Reddi v. Mallanna, Case No. 949/1355-F. Regd No. 4 (F.B.) . We have perused the judgment referred to above, and we find that the judgment has been mainly based upon the concessions made by Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties that by reason of the abolition of the Jagris, the question had become purely academic. It has been held in Venkanna v. Laxmi Sannapa, AIR 1951 Bombay 57 at 63 , that a statement was made by their Lordships merely on a concession made by counsel at their Lordships' bar and it would not have the sanctity of an endorsement of a particular legal position by their Lordships of the Privy Council. To the same effect are the observations of their Lordships of the Allahabad High Court in Bimla Devi v. Chaturvedi, AIR 1953 Allahabad 613 at 616 , para. 13. In this view of the matter, we do not think that the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case referred to earlier will have any bearing upon the decision of this appeal.