Back
Privy Council At Bombay
Sir George Rankin, Sir Shadi Lal , Justice Lord Thankerton , JJ.
Dolatsinghji Jaswantsinghji -Appellant
Versus
Khachar Mansur Bukhad and others -Resopndent
Appeal No. 60 of 1935
Decided On : 03-03-1936
Ruler of Limbdi State - Dispute over Talukdar status under Gujrat Talukdars Act (Bom. Act 6 of 1888) - S.2(1)(a), Gujrat Talukdars Act of 1888, as amended in 1905 - Agreement between Thakore and Government - Mulgametis' claim as talukdars - Court's interpretation of the agreement and evidential value
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Ruler of Limbdi State, sought a declaration that he, and not the respondents, is entitled to be registered as talukdar under the Gujrat Talukdars Act. The High Court set aside the decrees of the Subordinate Judge and remanded the suits to allow the appellant an opportunity of joining the Government as a party to the claim. The present appeals are taken against these orders.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court's decision was based on the existence of an agreement between the Thakore and the Government. The court found that the agreement did not contain a clear admission of the respondents' status as talukdars under the Act and therefore affords no evidence on the merits. The Subordinate Judge found against the respondents on the evidence and decided in favor of the appellant.
Issues: Dispute over talukdar status under the Gujrat Talukdars Act, interpretation of the agreement between Thakore and Government, and the evidential value of the agreement
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the agreement and found that it did not contain a clear admission of the respondents' status as talukdars under the Act, and therefore affords no evidence on the merits. The court also reviewed the evidence and concluded that the appellant alone is the person who could be held to be the proprietor of the villages as talukdar, and that the respondents do not hold their lands directly from the Government.
Final Decision: The court set aside the orders of the High Court, restored the decrees of the Subordinate Judge, and dismissed the cross-appeal. The appellant was awarded the costs of the appeal and cross-appeal as well as the costs in the High Court.
Lord Thankerton:-
The appellant in these eighteen consolidated appeals is the Ruler of Limbdi State in Kathiawar. The respondents are the mulgametis and landholders in 18 villages of the Khadol Barwala Taluka in Dhanduka in British India, each of the appeals relating to one of the villages. The appellant, as plaintiff in the suits, in substance asks for a declaration that he, and not the defendants, is entitled to be registered as talukdar under the Gujrat Talukdars Act (Bom. Act 6 of 1888), as amended by Act 2 of 1905.
On 23rd April l928 the Subordinate Judge at Ahmedabad granted the appellant in each suit the declaration asked for. On appeal the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, by an order in each suit dated 9th October 1931, set aside the decrees of the Subordinate Judge and remanded the suits to allow the appellant an opportunity of joining the Government as a party to the claim as regards an agreement dated 12th August 1922, and his absolute ownership of the villages in question within this months, failing which the suits would be dismissed. The present appeals are taken against these orders, and in course of the hearing before the Board the respondents asked for and obtained special leave to cross-appeal in order to enable the case to be heard and decided on the merits in the event of their Lordships setting aside the orders of the High Court. By S.2(1)(a), Gujrat Talukdars Act of 1888, as amended in 1905, "talukdar" is defined as including "a thakur, mehwassi, kasbati, and naik and a mulgameti who holds land directly from Government." The respondents claim to be mulgametis who hold lands directly from Government under the last part of the definition, which was included for the first time by the amending Act of 1905. The appellant admits that they are mulgematis, but disputes that they hold lands direct from Government.
After the Act of 1905 the mulgametis claimed to be recorded as talukdars in place of the Thakore of Limbdi, and disputes arose, which first came to a head as regards the village Salangpur, which is also one of the villages in Khadol Barwala Taluka and of which the Thakore held a two-thirds share, in a suit instituted by the Thakore in 1914 in the Court of the District Judge of Ahmedabad (No. 3 of 1914), who decided in favour of the defendants, and dismissed the suit on 23rd March 1916. The Thakore appealed and on 11th October 1922 the High Court reversed this decision, and held that the mulgametis did not hold direct from Government and that the Thakore was entitled to be recorded as talukdar as regards his share of the village : Dolatsingji Jaswantsingji v. Oghad Vira Khachar, 1924 Bom 72=82 IC 867=25 Bom LR 726. Meanwhile, a few months prior to the decision of the High Court in Dolatsingji Jaswantsingji v. Oghad Vira Khachar, 1924 Bom 72=82 IC 867=25 Bom LR 726, two material events had occurred. On 7th July 1922 the Talukdari Settlement Officer had issued instructions to the Assistant Survey Settlement Officer to enter the mulgametis as talukdars, except where they had sold the right of ownership to the Thakore before 1st June 1921, and directed that transactions respecting the transfers of rights in chouth were to be regarded as not subject to the Gujarat Talukdars Act. The other event was the making of an agreement between the Thakore and the Government dated 8th and 12th August 1922, which is in the following terms:
With a view to ensure the compilation without dispute of the Settlement Registers in the Limbdi Barwala villages enumerated in para. 8 below of the Dhandhuka Taluka and to obviate all sources of litigation between the parties interested regarding the status of the classes of persons claiming to be 'Mulgametis' the following terms are agreed as between the Thakore Saheb of Limbdi on the one part and Government on the other part :
(1) The Thakore Saheb agrees:
(a) That the kathis or the Girasias holding Jiwai lands shall be entered as 'Mulgametis' in the Settlement Registers with reference to
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
