Judgement

Appeal (No. 56 of 1921) from a judgment and decree of the High Court (December 22, 1916) reversing a decree of the District Judge of Dharwar (January 6, 1913).

The suit was brought by one Gururao, since deceased and represented by his widow the first respondent, against the appellant, the Secretary of State, and Vithalrao, the second respondent, to recover certain lands forming part of the Hebli estate.

That estate had been granted by the Government of the Peshwa at some date prior to 1775. No sanad was in existence, but proceedings before the Inam Commission of 1858, which contained certain records, were put in evidence.

On the introduction of British rule the estate was enjoyed in two moieties, one (which was not in question in the present proceedings) by Lakshmanrao representing the senior branch of the family, and the other by Ramchandrarao representing the junior branch. On the death of Ramchandrarao in 1818 the estate was continued, a nazrana being paid. Each of his two sons entered into separate enjoyment of a portion of their fathers estate, and that was recognized by the authorities. On the death of the elder son, which took place in 1842, the estate was continued to his son Pandurangrao above mentioned, on payment of a nazrana. In 1858 the Inam Commissioner decided under the Inam Rules that the Hebli estate was granted as a saranjam, which is a political tenure resumable by Government. In 1879 Pandurangrao executed a document purporting to partition his estate among his four sons. Pandurangrao died in 1899 and Government then resumed his estate and bestowed it on the second defendant.

In 1907 Ramrao, a grandson of Pandurangrao, filed a suit against the Secretary of State claiming to be entitled to one-sixteenth share of the saranjam, alleging it to be sarva inam and non-resumable, but his suit was dismissed both in the District Court and by the High Court at Bombay on appeal (seel. L. R. 34 B. 232).

The present plaintiff was another grandson of Pandurangrao,. and the second defendant was the son of Pandurangraos eldest grandson. The plaint alleged that the Hebli estate was a sarva inam, granted to the plaintiffs ancestor, and that consequently the lands in suit were his absolute property. By an amendment the plaintiff raised an alternative case as follows "Saranjam grant is a grant of the revenue only and the Government cannot resume the raitava rights which the plaintiff and his ancestors have been enjoying from ancient times. And even if the saranjam grant be of the soil, Government has no right to resume it. And the estate in suit is partible."

The District Judge dismissed the suit. He held that the estate was a saranjam and not a sarva inam. In his view the saranjam was a grant of the land revenue only, but he was of opinion that the right to hold the lands was a part of the grant and that they were consequently resumable with the saranjam. He further held that under s. 4 of the Revenue Jurisdiction Act (X. of 1876) the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit, save so far as the plaintiff had acquired occupancy rights apart from the grant; and he found that no occupancy right had been acquired. The learned District Judge in the passage in his judgment which is referred to in the judgment of the Judicial Committee, said in relation to facts appearing in the Inam Commission proceedings " Now as Hebli was in the possession of Balvantrao in 1757-8 and was resumed by the Peshwa in 1761 and given in farm to Balwantrao, and was in the following year included in the saranjam grant to others who were merely directed to pay a certain cash allowance to Balwantrao, it seems clear that under the original grant the right to hold the land was taken to be a part of the saranjam and resumable with the saranjam." He also found that the documents showed that the nazrana had been levied not only on the royal share of the revenue, but upon the entire revenue derived by the saranjamdar, including that which he obtained in