GANESH MAHADEV DESHPANDE Vs. SHRINIWAS MADHAV DESHPANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a dispute between the members of the Deshpande family which enjoyed the watan inam of Chincholi. The suit was by the plaintiffs father and son for partition, the father being the eldest brother of the eldest branch The main dispute between the parties was as to which property was impartible and which was subject, to partition. The inam grant itself was a vadilki inam, The trial Court held that the grant was a grant of the soil and not of the revenue only, and that apart from the Kadim inams enjoyed by the family prior to the present grants, which were subject to partition, the lands comprised in the grant or which had come into the possession of the inamdar qua-inamdar must be held to be impartible as also the old wada at Sangola. It also allowed the partition subject to the payment by the plaintiffs of Rs. 800 to each of the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for their marriage expenses and declined partition of the burden of payment of Rs. 1,000, the subject matter of a decree against the present plaintiffs in Suit No. 158 of 1912 of that Court.

(2.) Against this decree defendant No. 1 appeals in F.A. No. 303 of 1924 which is mainly concerned with the lands and the wada at Sangola. The plaintiffs appeal in F.A. No. 289 of 1924 in respect of Survey No. 64 and of lands which may be called Mangewadi lands, and also as regards the payment of Rs. 1,000 and the marriage expenses.

(3.) Before considering the question of impartiality in regard to each item, as 1 have already stated before, the grant itself Exhibit 64 is a grant of Chincholi with rights of primogeniture. As regards the question at issue generally, it is clear that it would depend on how the family has treated the other property. If successive generations have treated it as an acquisition to the inam to which the rule of primogeniture and impartibility applied, then it would require strong evidence to treat it as now subject to partition. As pointed out by their Lordships of the Privy Council in a series of cases, such as Srimati Rani Parbati Kwmari Debi V/s. Jagadis Chunder Dhabal (1902) L.R. 29 I.A. 82, 98, s.c. 4 Bom. L.R. 365; Janki Pershad Singh V/s. Dwarka Pershad Singh (1913) L.R. 40 I.A. 170, s.c. 15 Bom. L.R. 853; and Jagadamba Kumari V/s. Narain singh (1922) L.R. 50 I.A. 1, s.c. 25 Bom. L.R. 676, the intention is the test by which the Courts should be guided in cases of this nature.