DATTAJIRAO ALIAS TATYASAHEB BIN SHIDHOJIRAO ALIAS ABASAHEB GHORPADE Vs. NILKANTRAO BIN SANTOJIRAO ALIAS BAPUSAHEB GHORPADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff alleged Unit one Shidhojirao was the full owner of all the lands in two villages, namely, Jigeri and Irapur of Hon Taluka, and one house at (lajondragad, that the two villages were Saranjam Inams, that the plaintiff s father died in 1899, that I he plaintiff and Ids father were joint and the properties above- mentioned were managed and. enjoyed jointly by them up to the death of the plaintiff s father, that afterwards up to about Tune 1900, the plaintiff alone managed and enjoyed the property, and about the month of June 1900, the father of the defendant, without having any rigid thereto, illegally took possession of all the land and was in enjoyment of it until five years ago when he died, and since then the defendant had been enjoying the property. The plaintiff further alleged that his lather bequeathed the property in suit to him by will in the year 1890, but the plaintiff brought the suit not merely relying upon, the right which accrued to him under the will but upon his right by his survivorship and as the son of Shedhojirao, and he prayed that the Saranjam lands in the two villages of Irapur and Jigeri should, be given over by the defendant; that mesne profits should "be awarded, and further profits from the date of suit until possession at the rate of Rs. 1,000 a year. The defendant by the sixth paragraph of his written statement pleaded that the suit was not maintainable without a certificate of the Collector under Section 6 of the Pensions Act XXIII of 1871.

(2.) On the 13th September 1912, a preliminary issue was raised in the trial Court as follows: "Whether the suit can lie without a certificate under the Pensions Act?" On the 22nd of October 19.12, the Court passed its decision upon that issue, giving as its reason that "Mr. Kambli for the plaintiff agrees that a certificate is necessary and wants time to produce it." Time, accordingly, in accordance with the practice of! Civil Courts in this Presidency was given to the plaintiff s pleader. On the 1st April 1913 the learned Judge disposed of the suit upon, the preliminary issue, saying "after repeated adjournments for the production of the certificate, the plaintiff s pleader now informs the Court that the Collector has refused to grant the certificate. He appears clearly to have refused the certificate on the strength of Government Notification No. 1455, dated the 10th February 1912, published in the Bombay Government Gazette, Part I, page 192. The plaintiff s pleader wants lime to appeal to the Commissioner, but no such remedy is given to him by law. The suit is, therefore, dismissed with, costs."

(3.) Now the plea raised by the sixth paragraph of the written statement was based upon the provision of the Pensions Act, Section 4, that "no Civil Court shall entertain any suit relating to any pension or grant of money or land-revenue conferred or made by the British or any former Government;" and the subsequent provision is that to which I have already alluded, contained in Section 6, that a certificate by the Collector authorising to file the case must be produced. It is quite clear from the plaint that the plaintiff came to trial on the footing of the property which he seeks to recover being Saranjam, and it is equally, clear that the plea contained in. paragraph 6 of the written statement is based upon the established rule that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the grant of a Saranjam must be presumed to be a grant of land-revenue and not of the soil. That is laid down in Ramchandra v. Venkatrao (1882) 6 Bom. 598, and reference is made in the judgment in that case to the definition by Professor Wilson in his Glossary of the term "Saranjam." He defines Saranjam as "temporary assignments of revenue from villages or lands for the support of troops, or for personal service, usually for the life of the grantee; also grants made to persons appointed to civil offices of the State to enable them to maintain their dignity. They were neither transferable, nor hereditary, and were held at the pleasure of the Sovereign." The judgment also quotes the statement of Mr. Steele in his "Hindu Castes" at page 207 that: "Grants by the Native Government in jaghir were either Fouj Saranjam, subject to the performance of military service, or Jat Saranjam, personal jaghir. The subject of those grants were the whole or particular portions of the revenues of villages belonging to the Sarkar.... Usually the grants depended on the pleasure of the Sovereign, and the fidelity of the grantee. They were not, in general, hereditary."