Judgement

Appeal (No. 149 of 1924) from a decree of the High Court (September 16, 1921), reversing a decree of the District Judge of Dharwar.

The suit was brought in 1913 by the appellant, whose ancestors had received in 1748 a jaghir grant of a village named Hebli; he and his kinsmen are herein referred to as the Jaghirdars. The plaintiff sought to establish that he and his kinsmen defendants 12 and 13 (now respondents 8 and 9) were, and that the defendants (now represented by respondents 1 to 6, and referred to as the Nadgirs) were not watandar patils and kulkarnis of the above village, that 120 mars of land mentioned in the watan register were not watan land, and were not liable for the remuneration of the patils and kulkarnis, that the register might be cancelled accordingly, and that Rs.969 paid to the Government by the appellants in 1913 might be refunded. The Secretary of State for India in Council was a defendant, but was not a party to the appeal.

The facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The District Judge held that the claim to cancel the watan register was barred by s. 4 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876, but in other respects decided in favour of the plaintiff and decreed accordingly.

The present respondents 1 to 6 appealed and the appellant and respondent 9 filed cross-appeals.

In the result the High Court dismissed the suit. The learned judges (Macleod C.J. and Shah J.) were of opinion that there had been no decision of the Inam Commissioner in 1864, only a recommendation to the Revenue Commissioner. They found that the watan register was framed in 1906, and held that the suit was wholly barred by the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, Sch. I., art. 124.

1927. March 14, 15, 17. Sir George Lowndes K.C. and Jardine for the appellant.

Dunne K.C. and E. B. Raikes for respondents 4, 5a and 5b,

June 28. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

SIR JOHN WALLIS. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Bombay reversing the decree of the District Judge of Dharwar and dismissing the suit brought by the plaintiff, Laxmanrao, Jaghirdar of Hebli, for declarations (1.) that the plaintiff and defendants 12 and 13 are and that the Nadgirs are not watandar patils and kulkarnis of Hebli village, (2.) that the lands measuring 120 mars entered in the watan register of the village prepared under Bom. Act III. of 1874 are not watan lands, (3.) for a cancellation of the register, (4.) for a declaration that these lands were not liable for the remuneration of patils and kulkarnis, and (5.) for the recovery of Rs.969.0.8 levied from the plaintiff under Bom. Act III. of 1874.

The plaint alleged that the grant to their ancestors in 1748 of the village included 200 mars of land assigned for the remuneration of the patil kulkarni and nadgir offices in the village, and also the offices themselves, that as the defendants ancestors, who were the previous owners of these watans, had failed to pay the judi and raised a rebellion, their watans had been resumed long before 1723, and so the watani nature of the lands came to an end ; that ever since the establishment of the British Government the plaintiffs family had been in possession of all the said 200 mars, except 7¼ mars and 3 bighas and except 22 mars of which they had been deprived in a civil suit filed by defendants 7 to 11 in 1867, and also had been in possession of all patilki and kulkarniki rights. They alleged that they were watandars of patilki and kulkarniki under the sanad of 1748, and, if not, were entitled to their offices by virtue of long possession. The proceedings of Government recognizing the family of defendants 2 to 11 as watandars, and framing the watan register accordingly, and imposing a contribution on the plaintiff under Act III. of 1874, were accordingly wrongful.

In para.15 it was pleaded that the 200 mars were not now watan land, " the reason being that in the year 1858 the Inam Commissioner decided that the