DWARKADAS MOTILAL Vs. BAI JEKORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit by the plaintiff to obtain a declaration of her right to one-fourth share in the property mentioned in the plaint which she alleges to be known as Vania Desai Vatan Property. It consists of two villages and part of two others, also pasayata lands and cash allowances. The plaintiff is the daughter of one Lallu Naranji who died in 1870 leaving a widow named Jadav who died on the 8th January 1912. The plaintiff claims as a reversioner of Lallu Naranji. The family to which she belongs was entitled to Inam lands and other property in the Panch Mahals. One branch of the family was entitled to property with which we are not concerned. The other branch descended from one Valji Raghavji who is represented by Sunderji Valji and Kuvarji Valji each of whom had an eight annas share in the Inam property of that branch. With Kuvarji s share we are not concerned. Sunderji s eight annas share descended in equal moieties to Kasanji and Mulji. We are not concerned with Kasanji s four annasshare. Mulji had four sons Raiji, Jagubhai, Naranji and Bapuji. Bapuji married Deokuvar who represented the collateral branch of the Inamdar family, and Bapuji and his children have since then enjoyed the income of the Inaras appertaining to that branch, and for the purpose of this suit it may be taken that Bapuji did not participate with his brothers in the enjoyment of the four annas share descended from Mulji Sunderji. Mulji s grandson Jadhav Raiji having committed murder, his one anna share was assigned by the Government of the time to his cousins Lalji Jagubhai and Naranji Mulji. Thus Jagubhai s and Naranji s families became entitled to Mulji s four annas in equal shares. The plaintiff claims not only a share of her father Lallu Naranji, but also a share of her father s cousin Nandlal Lalji, and thus makes up her claim to one-fourth of the Inam property held by Valji s branch of the family. The chief defence is that the plaintiff being a female is excluded by the provisions of Act V of 188G from participating in the inheritance, for the defendants contend that the property in suit is all Vatan property. The first important question, therefore, is as to the quality of the Inam, is it Jat Inam or Service Inam i and, secondly, if it be held not to be Service Inam, so that the plaintiff is not barred by the provisions of the Act of 1886, is she entitled to anything more than the two annas share of her father Lallu Naranji .

(2.) Although the Inams are said to be 700 years old no Sanad or original grant is forthcoming. It is said that there were original Sanads but that they were destroyed in a flue in Godhra. Whether that allegation is true or false, there are no copies of any alleged Sanads forthcoming until the year 1888. In the year 1860 the Panch Mahals passed by treaty from the Maharaja Scindhia of Gwalior to the British Government, and Major Buckle representing the British Government was charged with the duty of investigating the nature of the various holdings in the territory so ceded. The result of his investigation was embodied in a report to Government in which he reported that the four villages in which the plaintiff claims to be entitled to share were held on service tenure. Government acted upon this report for a considerable time.

(3.) In 1872 they made rules for the settlement of alienated lands and cash allowances in the Panch Mahals : the following portions of the rules are relevant:- 2. All lands held by individuals as personal Inams, without the condition of service, the estimated value of which has been allowed for in the exchange of territory with His Highness Scindhia shall be continued hereditarily to lineal male heirs in male descent of persons who were in possession at the time of the cession of the Panch Mahals or of those whoso names are found entered in the accounts or in any authentic documents of His Highness Scindhia or in perpetuity as heritable and transferable property on the payment of two annas quit rent levied in Gujarat under Act VII of 1863. 5. All lands not fulfilling the conditions laid down in Rules 1 to 4 but claims to which may have been registered under the Notification of the 22ud December 1805, may, unless the claim appear to the Settling Officer to be so entirely unfounded as to warrant resumption (in which case an appeal will lie as hereinafter provided), be continued subject to the payment of a quit rent of from one-fourth to one-half of the Survey assessment in perpetuity as endowment property in the case of those held in trust for religions or charitable institutions and as heritable and transferable property in the case of those held as personal Inams. Provided that lands claimed by Hereditary District and Village Officers on any other than service tenure shall be considered as held on that tenure unless they are proved to be held on some other tenure to the satisfaction of the Settling Officer. N.B.-The case of lands held by Hereditary District Officers shall be disposed of separately. N.B.-Allowances to Hereditary District Officers will be disposed of separately.