BICHUBHA MANSANGJI Vs. VELA DHANJI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law in this case is whether the expressions talukdar's estate" and talukdari estate" occurring in Section 31 of the Talukdars (Gujrat) Act VI of 1888" include the estate held by a taluhdar on any other tenure than talukdari.

(2.) The question is really beset with difficulties of construction because the language of the section itself and in fact of the Act are rather obscure upon the point. Very careful arguments have been addressed to us on either side; and if the question were res Integra, I should have taken time to consider it more carefully. But I think that in principle the point arising in the present case is the same as that decided in Khodabhai Sartansing V/s. Chaganlal Kishordas 9 Bom. L.R. 1122. There it was held that the expression talukdar's estate meant only the estate held by a talukdar on talukdari tenure and not property held on any ordinary tenure which was distinguishable from the former.

(3.) That is a decision of a Division Bench of this Court. It was passed two years ago and unless I find that it is clearly erroneous, we must follow it. If I could not agree with that decision, the case would have to be referred to a Full Bench. I see no reason to disagree and I do not think that the circumstances of this case call for any such reference The Act is obscurely worded and if the decision in Khodabhai Sartansing V/s. Chaganlal Kishordas 9 Bom. L.R. 1122 is wrong, the legislature is at hand to correct that decision and amend the law.