BODHRAO GOPALRAO MUTALIK DESHPANDE Vs. SHRINIWAS ATMARAM JOG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main facts underlying this litigation are as follows: The Deshpande of the Karadgi Mahal granted certain lands to the plaintiffs ancestor, on condition that he should enjoy the same as remuneration for his services as Mutalik (i.e., deputy) of the Deshpande. The lands came into the possession of Narso Venkaji, who was the father of the Plaintiffs Nos. 4, 5 and 8, and in execution of a decree passed against Narso the lands were sold to one Bashetajppa at a Court auction in 1869. Bashetappa sold the lands to one Mahantappa, who in turn sold them to Balwant, the father of Defendant No 4. The sale to Bashetappa was subject to a mortgage; and in 1881 the father of Defendant No. 3 brought a suit against the mortgagees in possession of the lands. He obtained a decree, in execution of which he got possession of the lands in suit, and the defendants have been in possession ever since. Narso died on September 30, 1916, and the plaintiffs sued to recover the lands on the allegation that the alienation of the lands was only valid for Narso's lifetime, so that upon his death they became entitled to them.

(2.) The lower Court has held that the plaint lands were service vatan lands of the Deshpandes of Mahal Karadgi; that the plaintiffs are the hereditary Mutaliks of these Deshpandes; that the plaint lands were assigned to the plaintiffs family for the performance of the duties of this Mutalikship; and that the plaintiffs are vatandars in respect of those lands. But on the other hand it has held that Narso was the absolute owner of these lands in 1869, and that the Court sale in that year was a valid sale of such absolute ownership. The learned First Glass Subordinate Judge holds that in the circumstances, the sale is not affected by Section 20 of Regulation 16 of 1827, and that accordingly the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover the lands. He dismissed their suit with costs.

(3.) The main question, therefore, in this appeal is whether the alienation of 1869 is one which falls within the prohibition contained in Section 20 of the Regulation of 1827. This section must be read with the preceding Section 19 which, prescribes that the Collector shall keep a book recording the lands and allowances attached to hereditary district or village offices, and that record shall specify the allowances) whether from land, ready money, fees, or other perquisites, &c, received for such offices. Then Section 20, Clause 1 says says: The allowances so derived by a sole proprietor or occupant of an hereditary district or village revenue office shall in future be considered strictly as the official remuneration of the person filling the office, and as such shall not be subject to alienation by any incumbent.