SECRETARY OF STATE Vs. BAI RAJBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are consolidated appeals from preliminary and final decrees of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, dated respectively the 16th of April 1909, and nth of April 1911, modifying a decree of the District Judge of Ahmedabad, dated the 30th of November 1907, in Suit No. 7 of 1898 in his Court.

(2.) The question in issue in the action for an injunction, out of which these appeals have arisen, is whether the plaintiff, like her male ancestors, is not entitled to the continued possession, management and enjoyment of a certain village called Charodi about 2,200 acres in extent, situated in the pargana Viramgam, in the district of Ahmedabad, in the province of Gujarat. In her plaint she bases her right on her absolute ownership of this village. In argument before this Board and in the judgments of the Courts below her right has been also based apparently upon the following title, namely, this, that though her ancestors took from time to time several leases of this village from the Bombay Government, each for a term of years, they were not, as the appellant contends, mere lessees bound to give up to their lessors at the end of each term the possession of the demised village; but were legally entitled, as each lease terminated, to have a new lease granted to the last lessee or his representative. Either title, if possessed by her, would enable her to succeed in this action. In order to arrive at a conclusion on the issue thus in dispute between the parties it is necessary to examine briefly the history of this district of Ahmedabad before its cession by the Gaikwar, with the concurrence of the Peshwa, to the British Government in the year 1817, and to examine more in detail the dealings of the Bombay Government after that date with a certain class of its inhabitants, Mahomedans in religion, said to have originally come from Delhi under the Great Mugul, and styled indifferently Casbatees and Kasbatis, and especially their dealings with the ancestors of the respondent, who belonged to that class, touching this village of Charodi.

(3.) The ancestor of the respondent in possession of this village at the time of this cession was one Jehangirbhai alias Bapuji. One Fatumyia, his grandson, died in the year 1891 childless, leaving him surviving his widow, Nandbai, one of the plaintiffs in the action, who has died during the course of the litigation. One Bapuji, the brother of Fatumyia, died some years ago, leaving his son, Bapabhai, his only issue him surviving, and Bapabhai himself died in the year 1893, leaving his daughter, Bai Rajbai, the other plaintiff, his only child him surviving. This lady, who subsequently married and was left a widow, has thus become the sole surviving descendant of the member of the Kasbatis class who was in possession of this village of Charodi at the date of the aforesaid cession. The term Kasbatis, it is not disputed, was used to designate dwellers in towns whose lands were cultivated not directly by themselves but by ryots, to whom they let them, receiving therefor a rent in cash or in kind. They were, in addition, apparently invested with certain powers of government over their villages, including the management of village affairs. At the time of the cession the Kasbatis were possessed of seventeen villages within the pargana of which Charodi was one. The settlement of the territories ceded was not practically under-taken till the year 1822-1823.