DATTAJI NANA PATIL Vs. NARAYANRAO BHIMRAO PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in this suit seeks to recover certain property as the adopted son of one Nana, the adoption having been made to Nana by his widow Laxmi after his death. It appears that in 1908 the plaintiff committed a criminal offence and absconded. Measures were taken to secure his attendance under the Code of Criminal Procedure. A proclamation was issued on January 2, 1907, and an order for sale and confiscation of his property was made on Juno 22 of the same year. Under Section 89 it was necessary for the plaintiff to appear within two years and move that this order be set aside. He failed so to appear, and after certain further proceedings an order of confiscation was made on October 20, 1911. The effect of that order clearly was to put an end to any title which the plaintiff might have had with regard to the confiscated property, and unless he has in some way acquired a title since that order, it is difficult to see how the present suit can be maintained. He relies upon certain subsequent proceedings before the revenue authorities. It appears that on the death of Laxmi an inquiry was held as to who was the nearest heir of Nana, and the Assistant Collector, on October 17, 1913, held that Narayanrao, who is the first defendant in the case, should be recognized as heir. The ground upon which he proceeded was that the adoption of the plaintiff had not been reported to the Collector as required by Section 34 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act of 1874. In the course of his order he remarked that the Collector would not be bound to recognise the adoption even if it were supported by an heirship certificate of a civil Court. That order was upheld by the Collector in appeal, and in his order he stated that the plaintiff's claim could not be entertained without a civil Court's order. Therefore it appears that the revenue authorities declined to recognise the plaintiff as the heir of the deceased Nana.

(2.) Subsequently proceedings were taken by the revenue officers as regards the question of the restoration of these lands, which are Patilki Vatan lands. The order, so far as it is relevant to the present case, is in the following terms: In all other oases in which Watan land has been attached on account of Dattaji's default, the attachment should be released in favour of Narayanrao, since Dattaji was not recognised and had no right over the Watan property.

(3.) Upon these orders it is argued for the plaintiff that what was in effect decided was that the property should be regranted to the nearest reversioner, that by virtue of his adoption, which the revenue authorities refused to recognise, he is the nearest reversioner, and that the terms of the Collector's order showed that the revenue authorities were prepared to recognise his adoption, if he obtained a decree of the civil Court. It is difficult to spell out any decision to that effect on the part of the revenue officers. They appear to have merely suggested that possibly a decision of the civil Court might assist the plaintiff in establishing his claim.