TALUKDARI SETTLEMENT OFFICER Vs. RIKHAVDAS PARSHOTTAMDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit by an alleged mortgagee against the Talukdari Settlement Officer and the Talukdar whose estate is in his charge, for a declaration that the first defendant had no right on behalf of the second defendant to take possession of the field alleged to be mortgaged to the plaintiff, and for an order for possession of the field. The field was originally part of the Talukdari estate owned by Jethusangji, the uncle of the second defendant. In 1862 Jethusangji granted this field together with other lands to Gobarsangji, father of the second defendant, as a cadet of the Talukdar family for jiwai or maintenance according to the custom in vogue among Talukdars. Estates so granted in jiwai according to custom descend by inheritance to the descendants of the grantee but revert to the grantor on failure of the grantee s line. On the 19th of April 1889 Gobarsangji mortgaged the field in question with possession to the plaintiff s father. In 1894 the mortgagor died and in 1895 the mortgagee died. But after the death of the mortgagor the mortgagee and subsequently his son remained in possession of the field claiming to hold as mortgagees. In November 1907 the Talukdari Settlement Officer sent a notice to the plaintiff under Section 202 of the Land Revenue Code calling upon him to vacate the land in question. The plaintiff then filed this suit, and after the suit the Talukdari Settlement Officer purporting to act under the provisions of. 79A of the Land Revenue Code as amended by Section 33 of the Gujarat-Talukdars Act summarily evicted the plaintiff.

(2.) The case came first before the Assistant Judge of Ahmedabad who decided it in favour of the defendants holding that the plaintiff was an incumbrancer of a Talukdar s estate under an incumbrance made by a Talukdar and that therefore his title was invalid after 1894, the year of the death of Gobarsangji, and that the claim by the plaintiff to hold by virtue of adverse possession since 1894 could not be supported in that the Talukdari Settlement Officer, exercising the powers of a Collector lawfully conferred upon him, had evicted the plaintiff under Section 79A of the Land Revenue Code.

(3.) The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge who-held that Gobarsangji was not a Talukdar creating an incumbrance on a Talukdar s estate within the meaning of Section 31 of the Gujarat-Talukdars Act of 1888, and that therefore the plaintiff was entitled to succeed.