Judgement

Appeal (No. 59 of 1940) from a decree of the High Court (December 16, 1937) varying a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Dharwar (November 22, 1933).

The following facts are taken from the judgment of the Judicial Committee The appellant, Anant, brought the suit out of which this appeal arose in 1932 to recover certain watan properties from the respondent, Shankar. to whom possession had been given in 1928 by order of a Revenue Court. The properties in suit were the patilki right and the patilki watan lands of the village of Alnavar in the district of Dharwar, in the Province of Bombay. Those properties were governed by the Bombay Hereditary Office Act (Bom. Act III. of 1874) as amended by Bom. Act V. of 1886, which imposed on them a special rule of succession whereby every female, other than the widow of the last male owner, was postponed to every male member of the watan family qualified to inherit. No other feature special to watan property was relied on or discussed in the courts in India or mentioned in the printed cases lodged by the parties on this appeal; and their Lordships were not called- upon to consider whether on other grounds the law applicable to watandars or watan property varied from the ordinary Hindu law.

The family were governed by the Mitakshara, and the pedigree table hereunder given represented it sufficiently for the purposes of the case

Dhulappa

|

| |

Punnappa d. 1901 Hanamantappa

| |

| Gundappa d. 1902 | Narayan d. 1908 | Ramchandra |

| Bhikappa d. 1905 = Gangabai | | Shankar defendant | Hanamant | Babu

| Keshav d. 1917 | Anant adopted 19030 plaintiff

Dhulappas sons, Punnappa and Hanamantappa, separated long ago—in 1857, and the Alnavar watan

with its lands went to Punnappa. Narayan, one of his three sons, separated from him in his lifetime, taking as his separate share two plots or parcels of land represented by revenue survey numbers 173/2 and 174/1 which were included in the lands now claimed by the appellant. Thereafter Punnappa died in 1901, and his son Gundappa in 1902, so that in 1905 Bhikappa and his-minor son Keshav were the only coparceners in the joint family. In 1905 Bhikappa died, leaving his widow Gangabai and his son Keshav. In 1908 Narayan died, leaving a widow but no issue, and the widow having in or about that year remarried, the two plots which were his separate property devolved by inheritance on Keshav as being his nearest reversioner at the date of the remarriage. Keshav lived till 1917, when he died unmarried. At that date his nearest heir was the respondent Shankar, a somewhat remote collateral, who obtained possession of the suit properties from the collector in 1928 despite Gangabais opposition. Thereupon, in 1930, Gangabai adopted the appellant Anant as a son to her deceased husband Bhikappa, and in 1932, as next friend of her adopted son, brought the suit which was now before the Board.

The learned trial judge gave the appellant a decree, dated November 22, 1933, for possession with mesne profits from the date of suit; also a declaration that he was the lawfully adopted son of Bhikappa, and that as such he was the heir of the last male owner, Keshav. The High Court (Rangnekar and Wadia JJ.) on December 16, 1937, set aside the order for possession and mesne profits, and qualified the declaration by adding the words " except as regards the watan property "which has already vested in the defendant." They made no specific reference to the two plots which had belonged to Narayan, and the order for possession and mesne profits was set aside without any exception being made as to those plots. The ground of the High Courts decision was that as the coparcenary which existed at the time of Bhikappas death ( 1905) had come to an end on the death of Keshav ( 1917), and the family property had then vested in his heir; the subsequent adoption ( 1930) by Bhikappas widow, though valid, would not revive the co-parcenary or divest Keshavs heir, the adopting widow not being herself