TUNGABAI GOPAL DESAI Vs. KRISHNAJI RAMCHANDRA DESHPANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff sued to recover from defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and 9 and 10 by equitable partition her one-third share in the properties mentioned in Schedules A, B and D of the plaint or one-third share in the Linda in Schedule C even if the property in A was Deshpandegiri Vatan and for mesne profits. The properties in A, B and D originally belonged to one Gurnath Dattatraya Deshpande who died leaving three sons, Dattu, Shripad and Bhimappa. Shripad was the last owner as survivor and he died in January 1903 without issue, but leaving three sisters who filed three suits for partition. It was further urged by the plaintiff that though the property in Schedule C was Vatan, the occupancy rights were not Vatan as they existed before the grant of the Inam. The defence was that the lands were Vatan and so the plaintiff was not entitled to succeed. One decree was passed in the three suits, The trial Court held that the occupancy rights in the lands in Schedules C and D with certain exceptions were not Vatan, The plaintiff was also held entitled to certain sites in Schedule A. The lower appellate Court held that the plaintiff was not the owner of the occupancy rights in the lands mentioned in Schedules C and D with the exceptions mentioned in the decree The plaintiff has appealed and the only question argued in the appeal was whether the lands in the village of Gudgudi were ordinary Inam or Vatan.

(2.) The case has been unduly complicated by the view taken by the trial Court that the rights of the plaintiff's ancestors in the village were partly Inam partly Vatan, that the original grant was a grant of the royal share of the revenue, and any occupancy rights they possessed were acquired afterwards, so that they could not be considered as subject to the rules of succession to Vatan property. The learned appellate Judge seemed to think that this was a possible inference, but came to the conclusion that the grant included extensive proprietary rights and was a grant of the soil in that sense subject to rights already existing. Now if we concede that whatever rights the plaintiff's family now possess in the village arose from the original grant, it follows that those rights are either Inam or Vatan according to the purpose for which that grant was made. If, however, only the royal share of the revenue was granted for Vatan services it would not be impossible for the Vatan family to have acquired afterwards proprietary rights in the village lands which would be their personal property and would descend according to the rules of Hindu law. But it has not been suggested in this case that the occupancy rights in the village have been acquired apart from the original grant or the Sanad issued in 1901.

(3.) Exhibit 112 contains a copy of the original grant, from which it appears that the village of Gudgudi was given as Palkhi Inam to the plaintiff's ancestors who were admittedly Deshpande Vatandars.