Back
1927 Supreme(SC) 57
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD ATKINSON, LORD CARSON, SIR JOHN WALLIS, AND SIR LANCELOT SANDERSON.
LAXMANRAO MADHAVRAO - Appellant
Versus
SHRINIWAS LINGO (DEFENDANTS) - Respondents
On appeal from the High Court at Bombay.
Decided On : June. 28. 1927.
Solicitor for appellant: H. S. L. Polak.
Solicitors for respondents 4, 5A, and 5B: T. L. Wilson & Co.
Claims to hereditary offices and register cancellations are barred by the Revenue Jurisdiction Act, but suits for refund of illegally levied contributions are maintainable upon enforcement, especially if the land was previously adjudicated exempt under Inam legislation.
Headnote:(A) Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876 - Section 4 - Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 - Section 25 - Indian Limitation Act, 1908 - Articles 120 and 124 - Act XI of 1852 - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts - Claims relating to hereditary offices - Bar on suits to set aside orders passed by Government or authorized officers - Exception where property is declared exempt under Act XI of 1852 - Suit for refund of contribution levied under hereditary offices legislation - Cause of action arises upon enforcement of the order, not upon the passing of the order.
(B) Limitation - Suit for recovery of money levied under a government order - If the order is illegal, the party is not bound to file a suit to set it aside immediately but may wait until the order is enforced - The attempt to enforce the order gives a fresh cause of action.
(C) Conflict of Laws - Provisions of legislation relating to hereditary offices do not conflict with the terms on which an alienated village was secured to its proprietor, especially where an adjudication under previous inam legislation declares the property exempt.
Facts of the case:
A dispute arose regarding whether certain lands were watan lands assigned for the remuneration of hereditary village officers. A previous adjudication by an Inam Commission had determined the lands were not old inams and belonged to the jaghirdar. However, a later watan register recognized a different family as watandars and levied a contribution from the jaghirdar for the remuneration of those officers. The jaghirdar sought a declaration of his own status as watandar, cancellation of the register, and a refund of the contribution.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the claim for the watan office and the cancellation of the register was barred by the Revenue Jurisdiction Act. However, the claim for the refund of the contribution was maintainable. The previous adjudication under the Inam Commission Act of 1852 rendered the lands exempt from the contribution required under the Hereditary Offices Act.
Issues: Whether the Civil Court's jurisdiction is barred by the Revenue Jurisdiction Act regarding claims to hereditary offices and cancellation of registers; whether a suit for refund of contribution is barred by limitation if filed after the enforcement of the order rather than the passing of the order; and whether an adjudication under Act XI of 1852 exempts land from contributions under the Hereditary Offices Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 4 of the Revenue Jurisdiction Act precludes civil courts from entertaining claims to hereditary offices or suits to set aside orders passed by authorized officers. However, a suit for refund of money levied under such an order is not barred by limitation if the cause of action is based on the enforcement of the order. Furthermore, an adjudication under Act XI of 1852 declaring property exempt from land revenue (including cesses) provides a statutory exception to the jurisdictional bar and overrides the contribution requirements of the Hereditary Offices Act.
Result: Appeal allowed in part; decree for refund of contribution and declaration that lands are not liable for contribution; other claims dismissed.
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
