GANGADHAR NATHU Vs. VISHNU VITHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an important case in the nature of a test case as to whether, when the cash allowance of a representative watandar under the Watan Act has been commuted under the provisions of that Act, the commuted allowance thenceforth becomes in effect joint Hindu family property, and consequently can no longer be claimed by the representative watandar to be his exclusive property, as would be the case with the cash allowance itself prior to the date of the commutation.

(2.) We have listened to an interesting argument from Mr. Kelkar, counsel for the defendant, who supports the view that, in the present case, the representative watandars are entitled exclusively to the commuted allowance just as they were to the original allowance. That argument has not been concluded, nor have we heard Mr. Shingne, counsel for the successful plaintiffs in the lower appellate Court. We have taken this course for two reasons, (1) because we consider that there are certain facts which should be found and which are or may be material, and (2) because this appears to be a case which may more properly be heard by a Full Bench, particularly having regard to what Prima facie appears to be a conflict of authority between Bhau V/s. Ramchandrarao (1895) I.L.R. 20 Bom. 423 a decision of Sir Charles Sargent and Mr. Justice Candy, and Vaman V/s. Jagannath a decision of Sir Norman Macleod and Mr. Justice Crump.

(3.) As regards the first point, the question of fact which we want to be made clear is whether the original case allowance was derived solely from the Government Treasury, or whether it was derived wholly or in part from the watan lands. Accordingly, on that point we will direct a remand to the lower appellate Court to determine (1) whether the original cash allowance was derived (a) wholly or in part from the watan land, and/or (b) wholly or in part from the Government Treasury; and (2) whether since the date of the commutation there has been any increase in the assessment of the watan land. The second question is suggested to us by counsel for the respondents, who points to condition 2 of the commutation, Exhibit 24, which suggests that the assessment on the watan lands themselves might be increased by reason of the settlement arrived at. Consequently, the interests of other holders in the watan, apart from the representative watandars, may, perhaps, be affected by the settlement.