DADOO BHAOO Vs. DINKAR VISHNU APHALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by an Inamdar to eject the defendants. One of his pleas was that the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were his yearly tenants. The plaintiff s position as an Inamdar was conceded, but his claim to own the Mirasi or occupancy rights in these lands was denied by the defendants, and the only question which we have to decide is whether the plaintiff s claim to these Mirasi rights should be allowed.

(2.) The first Court held against the plaintiff upon this point, but that decree was reversed on appeal, and the present appeal is brought by the defendants 2 to 5. It seems clear that prior to 1880, the plaintiff s position as Inamdar was accepted, and gave rise to no disputes. But in 1880 the Survey Settlement was introduced into this village, and in the Settlement Register the present appellants were entered as the Khatedars. Since 1880 admittedly they have been cultivating the lands, paying only a sum equivalent to the annual assessment.

(3.) The contention for the defendants is that, by virtue of the provision of Section 217 of the Bombay Land-Revenue Code, the effect of the introduction of the Survey Settlement in 1880 was that thereafter the defendants had the same rights in respect of these lands in their occupation, as holders of land in un-alienated villages had, and have, under the provisions of the Bombay Land-Revenue Code.