JAYANT BAPSHA SAVANT Vs. ABDUL RAHIMAN MAHOMED IBRAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff alleged that he was a co-sharer Khot of the suit-village of Bhandivli; that he managed the suit village in the years 1914-15, 1915-16, 1916- 17 and 1917-18; that a Khoti Khata stood in the defendant's name; and that the defendant did not pay Dhara and Faida for those lands. The defendant inter alia contended that for some lands in suit he was liable to pay only Dhara and local cess; and the main issue in the suit was whether for those lands he was liable to pay the Faida.

(2.) In the trial Court the learned Judge points out that a Khot in respect of his Khasgi lands is a tenant to himself so far as his liability to the body of Khots is concerned. With regard to Khasgi lands, I understand, the position is that the holder is still liable to pay Faida to the general body of the Khots, and that this payment of Faida for various Khasgi lands held by various co-sharers in the ordinary course would be adjusted when the division of profits is made among the joint body of the Khots.

(3.) The defendant, as a purchaser of Khoti Khasgi lands from one of the co- sharers Khots, would be liable to pay Faida unless he was able to show that by virtue of some custom or agreement amongst the Khots the Faida was not payable. That was a matter to be proved by evidence, and as the learned Judge points out no evidence whatever was adduced. The fact that the defendant produced four sale deeds, under which the defendant bought Khoti Khasgi lands, which were alleged to be immune from the payment of Faida, would not be relevant unless it could be shown that the general body of Khots had agreed to those terms. The plaintiff's claim was, therefore, decreed in the trial Court, and this decision was confirmed in appeal.