IMAM VALAD IBRAHIM Vs. BHAU APPAJI JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We see no reason to differ from the conclusion by the learned Assistant Judge on the questions of res judicata and limitation.

(2.) The only other point arising on the appeal is whether the plaintiffs had an equity of redemption remaining in them, and that depends upon whether the Rajinama or the series of Rajinamas upon which the defendants rely required registration. The learned Assistant Judge observes: It is perfectly clear that the transactions with regard to the Khata of the land which took place between 1875 and 1878 were intended to transfer ownership. Mutation of names was a well recognized means of transfer Unfortunately for the defendants, Rajinamas and Kabulayats in alienated villages had no legal standing at the time these transactions took place. Act I of 1865 did not apply to such villages. The Rajinama by which Anandrao transferred his interest to the Mamlatdar was, therefore, a document which required registration, and so it cannot be proved in Court. The result is no doubt unfortunate. The defendants who have all along supposed themselves to have an indefeasible title, now find themselves liable to be redeemed by the plaintiffs the conduct of whose predecessor-in-title appears to have been all along thoroughly dishonest. ( See remarks by the District Judge in the Judgment in the previous suit).

(3.) The Rajinamas upon which the defendants relied were three in number. First, there was a Rajinama in 1875 by which the mortgagor Anandrao addressing the Inamdar of the Inam village stated that he gave notice that he had that day transferred his Khata together with all the rights appertaining to the same to Jyoti bin Appaji Chavan residing at the place aforesaid. The Rajinama was duly given in writing.