Judgment

SINHA J. - This is an appeal by leave of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay from the decision of a Division Bench of that Court reversing that of the trial Court in respect of items 3,4 and 6 in the list of the properties attached to the plaint as the subject-matter of the dispute. In respect of the other items of the property in dispute the Courts below have given concurrent decisions and that part of their judgements is no more in controversy at this stage. The three items aforesaid of the property along with the others in dispute had been decreed in favour of the original plaintiffs 2 and 3 as Watan property. But on appeal by the third defendant, the High court reversed the decision of the trial Court only in respect of those three items and confirmed the decision of the trial Court in respect of the rest of the plaint properties.

2. The propositus was one Shreemant who died on 23-11-1941 leaving him surviving his wife Radhabai. Radhabai died on 9-5-1945 and on her death the dispute arose between the reversioners on the one hand including the plaintiffs 2 and 3, appellants in this Court, and the defendants on the other who claimed by virtue of alleged adoptions said to have been made by Radhabai aforesaid. The first plaintiff is out of the picture now on the concurrent finding by the Courts below that he had no right to the estate left by the propositus by virtue of the adoption found in his favour, inasmuch as before he was adopted the estate had already vested in the actual reversioners, plaintiffs 2 and 3, the agnatic relations of Shreemant. The estate of Shreemant, so far as it related to Watan lands, vested in plaintiffs 2 and 3 aforesaid under the provisions of Bombay Act V of 1886.

If either defendant 2 or defendant 3 had proved his alleged adoption by Radhabai aforesaid, he would have been entitled to the estate as the adopted son of propositus, thus excluding the agnatic relations, namely, plaintiffs 2 and 3. But both the Courts below have concurrently found that neither of the two defendants 2 and 3 had succeeded in proving the adoption respectively pleaded by them. The trial Court had substantially decreed the suit in respect of all the items of property in dispute including the three items which, as indicated above, are the only properties now in controversy in this Court, on the finding that these two were Watan properties which like the rest of plaint properties were inherited by the reversioners aforesaid, namely, plaintiffs 2 and 3.

The High Court on appeal held that the three items of property now in dispute, though originally Watan properties, had lost their character as such by reason of the fact that they had been resumed by Government after dispensing with the service and after levying full assessment on those lands. Those lands have been called "Japti Sanadi Inam lands" in the records of the Courts below and it is by that name that we shall refer to the disputed lands in the course of this judgement.

3. It would thus appear that the controversy has narrowed down to the question whether the Japti Sanadi Inam lands still retain their character as Watan lands as held by the trial Court, or have lost their character as such in view of the events that had happened as decided by the High Court. It is not disputed that in the former case the plaintiff-appellants will be entitled to them also even as they have been adjudged to be entitled to the rest of the properties in dispute which were admittedly Watan lands. It is equally undisputed that if the Japti Sanadi Inam lands are no more Watan lands, this appeal must fail. On this Question both the Courts below have been rather cryptic in their remarks. The trial Court held them to be Watan lands, with the following observations:

"The lands at serial Nos. 3,4 and 6 are Japti Sanadi lands. They still retain the character of the Sanadi lands in spite of the fact that services have been temporarily dispensed with and full assessment levied. Sanadi lands have