BAI LAXMI Vs. MAGANLAL JAMIETRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to, the findings of the two lower Courts land in certain villages became the vatan property of the original vatandar named Gopinath. Gopinath had no descendants, and so far as we can tell, at the time of his death his nearest relations were Girdharlal, the son of his father s elder brother Bhalabhai, and Mahasukhram, the son of his father s younger brother Maharaiji. In 1838, fresh sanads were issued by Government apparently to meet the situation created by the death without issue of the original vatandar. There was a sanad of September 1868, Exhibit 130, which related to the village of Mullera. There was a sanad of December 1868, Exhibit 109, which related to the villages of Amod and Rahod, and there was in the same year a sanad, Exhibit 110, relating to cash allowances. At the time of the issue of sanad Exhibit 130, Dinanath, son of Girdbarlal, was apparently alive, and he is stated to be the holder of the land in the village of Mulleraj his vahivatdars being Venilal Maneklal, his grand nephew, descended from an elder son of Girdharlal, and his son Balwantrai Dinanath. In the sanad Exhibit 109, of December 1868, Dinanath Girdharlal is not mentioned. If he was dead, the representative member of the eldest branch of Girdharlal s family would be Venilal Maneklal. He is mentioned in the sanad as the holder of the lands in the villages of Amod and Rahod, and his vahivatdar is stated "to be Jamietram Mahasukhram belonging to the younger branch descended from Gopinath s younger uncle. The cash allowance was allotted to representatives of the families of Girdharlal and Mahasukhram jointly.

(2.) The present suit relates to the lands in the villages of Amod and Rahod, which were enjoyed up to July 1911 by members of Girdharlal s family or their widows. Upon the death of the last widow on that date the defendant entered into possession. She is the granddaughter of Dinanath. The plaintiffs representing the branch of Mahasukhram claim to be entitled to possession of the vatan lands in these villages on the strength of Section 2 of Bombay Act V of 1886, which provides that every female member of a vatan family other than the widow of the last male owner...shall be postponed, in the order of succession to any vatan, or part thereof, or interest therein, devolving by inheritance after the date when this Act comes into force, to every male member of the family qualified to inherit such vatan, or part thereof, or interest therein."

(3.) The learned Judges in the lower Courts have held that the plaintiffs are male members of the family qualified to inherit, and as such exclude the female defendants.