HUCHANGOUDA RUDRAGOUDA Vs. KALLAVA KALLAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in this suit seek to recover possession of certain proportion which are patilki inam lands assigned for the remuneration of the office of Patil in the village of Kotbagi. It is common ground that there are two families holding these patilki inam lands, and that they hold them half and half. The plaintiffs are the sisters of one Kallangouda who succeeded to a half share of the property in that family some thirty years ago, Kallangouda died in 1885 leaving a widow Yellava, and Yellava hold the property, having the ordinary Hindu widow's interest therein, till the date of her death in 1917, and upon that event the succession opened to the deceased Kallangouda. The two plaintiffs are the sisters of Kallangouda, and it is not disputed that tinder (he Hindu law they would be entitled to succeed. But, the property being watan property, it is necessary to consider the provisions of Section 2 of Bom. Act V of 1886 which lays down a special rule of succession in such cases. For the purposes of the present appeal that section runs as follows :- Every female member of a watan family [I here omit certain exceptions which are not relevant to Chi a wise] shall be postponed in the order of succession to any watan, or part thereof,...devolving by inheritance after the date when this Act comes into fore to every male member of the family qualified to inherit such watan, or part thereof....

(2.) The question, therefore, is whether the plaintiffs are excluded by the operation of this.statute. And that gives rise at once to the question whether the plaintiffs and defendants are members of a watan family. The word "family" is defined in Section 4 of the Hereditary Offices Act, 1874, and the definition is as follows:- Family includes each of the branches of the family descended from an original watandar.

(3.) The meaning to be attached to this definition has been explained in Bai Laxmi V/s. Maganlal (1917) I.L.R. 41 Bom. 677, s. c. 19 Bow. L.R. 730. The following passage from the judgment of Scott C.J. may be cited (p. 684):- The learned District Judge in dealing with the definition of family observes that it is inclusive and not exclusive, that is to say, that it does not exclude the application of the ordinary meaning of the word family . Now the Dictionaries of Webster and Murray are both agreed in giving as one of the meanings of the word family , (which -would be an appropriate meaning in the present connection) those descended (really or putatively) from a common progenitor . In the case of a Vatan family , taking the expression family in the ordinary non-technical sense it does not appear to be unreasonable to assume that the common progenitor must be a Vatandar.