SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA Vs. BAI RAJBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The District Judge has come to the conclusion that no conditions should be stated in the decree, because the written law makes enough provision for the matter. It would, he thinks, be superfluous to prescribe conditions.

(2.) As a result of the discussion in this Court it is, I understand, admitted that Bombay Act VI of 1888 and the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, with the modifications it enacts do apply to the Kasbati village of Chharodi. It is to me quite clear that they do, for Kasbatis are included amongst Talukdars (see the definition in Section 2 of Bombay Act VI of 1888). There was a good deal of discussion as to the meaning of Section 22 of that Act but it is now agreed that it covers the case of this village, so the matter needs no exposition in this judgment. It seems therefore that there is a written law applicable to the case and so far the District Judge is right.

(3.) Now I will deal with the argument that conditions are superfluous. If the precise relations between the Government and the Kasbati holder are to be fully known and easily re. ferred to it is necessary to have them clearly stated, especially as it is admitted that the Kasbati does not hold unconditionally and the nature of the conditions has given rise to prolonged and acute controversy. In analogous cases the conditions are stated in a "patta" or lease or in a settlement register as provided by Section 5 of Bombay Act VI of 1888. Here we have no lease, "no patta" and no settlement register. Unless we provide for it in our decree the matter will be left at large and will, very probably, provoke continued dispute and litigation. Clearly then it is not superfluous to determine the conditions ; and equally clearly it is convenient. Therefore to the best of our ability they shall be determined. But in so doing, nothing must be decreed which is contrary to or inconsistent with the written law.