Judgment

B. K. Mukherjea, J. - This appeal is directed against a judgement and decree of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated 14-3-1945, which affirmed on appeal, the decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge, Satara passed in Civil Suit No. 890 of 1938. The appellants before us, filed the suit, as plaintiffs, in the original Court for establishment of their title to the property in dispute which is known as Chikurde Estate, on the allegation that they were under the Hindu Law, the nearest heirs of one Bhimabai who was admittedly the last holder of the estate. The suit was brought initially against one defendant, namely, the Court of Wards, Satara, and admittedly the Court of Wards took possession of the property of Bhimabai, while she was alive, and is continuing in possession of the same even now after her death. Later on, defendants 2, 3 and 4, who put forward rival claims of succession to the estate, were allowed to intervene in the suit, and were added as parties defendants. The Court of Wards, which now figures as defendant 1, took up, all though, a neutral attitude and expressed its willingness to hand over the estate to any person who would be declared to be rightfully entitled to it by the Court. The Courts below have negatived the claims of defendants 2 and 3 and they have not come up to press their claims in the appeal before us. The two rival claimants, who are now on the scene, are the plaintiffs on one side and defendant 4 on the other, and the whole controversy in this appeal centres round the point as to who amongst them have the preferential right to succeed to the disputed estate after the death of Bhimabai. To appreciate the material facts of the case and the contentions that have been raised by the parties, it will be convenient to refer to the following genealogy which is not disputed by either side.

2. It is the case of both the parties that Vithalrao, whose name appears at the top of the pedigree table, and who was the common ancestor of the parties held the disputed property as watan property appertaining to the hereditary office of Deshmukhi service. Vithalrao was the recipient of a Sanad dated 28-11-1892, under what was called the Gordon Settlement, the object of which was to commute services of certain watandars in that part of the country and relieve them from liability to perform the services attached to their office on certain terms and conditions which were agreed upon between the Government on one hand and the watandars on the other. The terms of the settlement were generally embodied in Sanads and one such Sanad was granted to Vithalrao in 1892. It is not disputed that after this settlement Vithalrao continued to be watandar as defined by Bombay Act III [3] of 1874, and that the watan in dispute was an impartible estate governed by the rule of primogeniture. In 1896 Vithalrao died and he was succeeded by his eldest son Ganpatrao under the law of primogeniture. Ganpatrao died childless in 1914, leaving behind him two widow Anandibai and Indirabai, of whom the senior widow Anandibai is defendant 2 in the present suit. Both the two brothers of Ganpatrao, namely, Nilkanthrao and Anandrao had predeceased him. Nilkanthrao left behind him one son named Firangojirao and two daughters, while Anandrao died childless, leaving him surviving his widow Krishnabai, who later on adopted Vithalrao, who is defendant 4 in the suit. Ganpatrao had left a will bequeathing all his watan and non watan properties to Firangojirao and the latter succeeded to the estate both under the will as well under the law of lineal primogeniture, he being the only male member of the family at that time. Firangojirao died in 1919, leaving Bhimabai, his only daughter, who was a minor at that time. On 23-9-1921 the name of Bhimabai was entered in the village records as watandar in place of Firangojirao and in the year following the Court of Wards, Satara, assumed, superintendence of Bhimabai s estate.

On 11-10-1923 the Gove