The regrant of land in the name of one family member does not deprive other family members of their right to claim partition and separate possession. The joint family property status and personal law governing the parties determine the entitlement to the property.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by defendants 1 and 4 is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the civil Judge, Haveri, in O. S. No. 34/1971 on 6-8-1976.

( 2 )

2. 1. The aforesaid suit was filed by respondent No. 1 for a declaration that he is the exclusive owner of the suit land bearing Sy. No. 112, measuring 27 acres 14 guntas situated at Devagiri village, Haveri Taluk District: Dharwad and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession. The trial Court has decreed the suit.

2. 2. The parties in this Judgment will be referred to with reference to their position in the Trial court.

( 3 ) HAVING regard to the contentions urged on both sides, the point that arises for consideration is :

"whether the Trial Court is justified in Jaw in holding that the plaintiff is the exclusive owner of the suit land ?"

( 4 )

4. 1. It is not in dispute that the suit land is Shet Sanadi Inam - otherwise known as Walikarki or talwarki inam This is one of the inferior village offices as it is of lower degree than that of a patel or Village Accountant. As per Section 2 (h) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'),'inferior village office' means every village office of lower degree than that of Patel or Village Accountant. This inferior village office along with all other village offices is abolished by Section 4 of the Act. All incidents including the right to hold office and the emoluments attached thereto, the right to levy customary fees or perquisites in money or in kind and the liability to render service appertaining to all the village offices are also extinguished. Further, subject to the provisions of Sections 5, 6, and 7 of the Act, all lands granted' continued in respect of or annexed to a village office by the State stand resumed and are subject to the payment of land revenue under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue code and the Rules and Orders made thereunder as if it were an un-alienated land or ryotwari land

4. 2, The inferior service inam in question was granted to the original prepositus Mallappa who had two sons by name Fakirappa and Udachappa. After the death of Mallappa, Udachappa officiated as Shet-Sanadi for some time. His line became extinct. Fakirappa had four sons by name Mallappa, Shivappa, Guddappa and Basavanneppa. The plaintiff is one of the sons of mallappa. Defendants 5, 6 and 7 are the children of Guddappa who is defendant-4. Defendant-1 is Shivappa and Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of defendant-1. Basavanneppa the fourth son of mallappa is not made a party.

4. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that after the abolition of the inam, the land came to be regranted under Section 5 of the Act in his name on the ground that at the time of abolition of the village office, he was officiating as Shet Sanadi ; that the defendants also opposed the proceedings and claimed that they were also entitled to have the land granted along with the plaintiff and their objections were over-ruled and the land came to be regranted in his name. Therefore, it is the case of the plaintiff that he has become the absolute owner and he is entitled to be declared as such.

( 5 ) THE defendants contested the suit and inter alia contended that the inferior village office in question was granted to the original prepositus of the plaintiff and the defendants by name mallappa (great grand-father of the parties) and the land in question was assigned to the said village office and it was being enjoyed as a joint family property by all the members of the joint family; that Shivappa, the father of the plaintiff officiated as Shet-Sanadi on behalf of the joint family and that the suit land was not partitioned on the abolition of the village office; that the defendants and the plaintiff are entitled to have their respective shares in it; that merely because the land has been regranted in the name of the plaintiff, the right of the defendan