SAHEBRAO NARAYANRAO DESHMUKH Vs. JAIWANTRAO YADAORAO DESHMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Their Lordships have heard arguments in two appeals from the Central Provinces arising out of two suits between the same parties and connected with the same watan or hereditary endowment and will now proceed to dispose of them together. The first of these appeals is from a judgment in second appeal of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in a suit filed in 1918 by the head of the junior branch of the watan family and his son to recover a one-half share of an annual payment of Rs. 768-8-0, made by Government to defendant 1, the head of the senior branch. The other appeal is from a judgment of the same Court on first appeal in a suit filed in 1924 by the head of the senior branch of the family to recover from the head of the junior branch possession with mesne profits of a one anna four pice share of the watan village of Lakhanwadi, of which it was alleged he had taken wrongful possession. In this case the Court affirmed the judgment of the District Judge decreeing the suit. The facts which led up to this litigation as they appear from documents exhibited in both suits may be first stated.

(2.) In 1860 Achawit Rao, the great uncle of Sahab Rao, defendant 1 in the earlier and the plaintiff in the later suit, obtained from the Nizam's Government a sanad confirming and continuing to him on the death of his father Khooshalrao the watan (hereditary office) of Deshmukh of the Fergana Daryapur in Berar. Berar was one of the Districts which had been assigned by the Nizam to the exclusive management of the Resident at Hyderabad under the orders of the Government of India by the Treaty of 1853; and, as the Deshmukhs had already been relieved of what was formerly their principal duty, the collection of the revenue, the sanad, whilst continuing to the grantee : "his usual Russoons, Huqs, Palanputt villages, share in the Mookuddumee of Daryapur, Inams, Babs, Lowazmah of villages of his share,"merely required him "enjoying the said Lowazmah and Huqs of his office of Deshmookee," to endeavour to encourage the increase of raiyats and of cultivators of the land and the prosperity of the villages, and to be obedient to the Amils and Jaghirdars and render them every assistance in his power and pay the Government dues in proper season. As will be seen, even these light duties disappear from the inam certificate of 1870, which continues the grant of the village of Lakhanwadi for personal maintenance to Achawit Rao, his lineal descendants and cosharers. Under this sanad the grantee only obtained a one-third share of the Kushba or Perganna Daryapur, consisting of 37 villages, one of which Lakhanwadi, was entered as a Palampat village and formed part of the endowment. As stated in the inam rules a single Perganna had often been divided and each of the divisions held for several generations by a member of the Deshmukh family. In the adjoining Bombay Presidency, as Mr. Mayne has observed, Hindu Law, Edn. 9, p. 676 : "There are numerous revenue and village offices, such as deshmuk, despandya, desai and patel, which are remunerated by lands granted by the State. These lands have by lapse of time come to be regarded as purely private property of the family which holds the office, though they are subject to the obligation of discharging its duties."

(3.) It is therefore not surprising to find from the evidence in this case that a similar state of things had arisen as regards the office of Deshmukh in Berar. The records of the Lakhanwadi Inam inquiry in 1867 are the most important evidence in both suits, and it will be convenient to deal with them at once, especially as leave to appeal has been granted in the allowance suit owing to conflicting decisions as to the effect of the inam rules on the descent of these allowances. In 1859 the Government of India had made inam rules for the settlement of jagir and inam claims in Berar, which, though differing in some respects, were on the same lines as the rules prescribed about the same time for the adjoining Presidencies. Under R. 8 "the term inam is to be understood as applying to all land, whether in integral villages or lesser grants held entirely free of land-rent or on a favourable quit-rent and will all be disposed of under the above rules."