SHANKAR YESU KARGUTKAR Vs. HHKHEM SAWANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, the Sar Desai of Sawantwadi, sued thirty-three defendants for possession of the property in suit after removal of the buildings which defendants had built on the land, for arrears of rent, and for costs, alleging that the property which belongs to the Savantwadi State was leased for twenty-five years from April 1,1897, to one Narayan Venku Kargutkar, who is the ancestor of the Hindu defendants, and one Farsoo Niklu who is the ancestor of defendants Nos. 10 to 12. The other defendants held under these defendants. The defendants set up various pleas of permanent tenancy, limitation, and so forth, and claimed compensation. The first Court, the Subordinate Judge of Vengurla, awarded plaintiff possession as against defendants Nos. 1 to 17 and the heirs of defendant No, 18, but dismissed his suit as against the Christian defendants other than defendants Nos. 2 to 16, who were held to be ancient tenants of their portion liable to pay rent to the plaintiff according to the custom of the country under Section 83 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.

(2.) Two appeals were preferred against this decree, one by the Kargutkar defendants against the decree against them, and one by the plaintiff against the dismissal of his suit as against the Christian defendants already referred to. Both these appeals were dismissed by the District Court of Ratnagiri. No second appeal has been made by the plaintiff as against the dismissal of his appeal, but defendant No. 17 and the heirs of defendant No. 18 have appealed to this Court.

(3.) We are not now concerned with the case of the Christian tenants, but only with the family of Kargutkar. The lease in question was passed by Narayan Venkaji Kargutkar. The genealogy will show that he had two brothers Yesu and Krishna. Yesu had two sons, Venkaji defendant No. 16 and Shankar defendant No. 17, and Krishna, who is defendant No. 18, had four sons. The present appellants are defendant No. 17 and the sons of defendant No. 18. Defendant No. 1 has not appealed.