The abolition of Patil Watans under the Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Office) Act, 1962, did not make impartible Patilki Watan lands partible, as the Vat Hukums and the Digest of Hindu Law, which were applicable to the parties, did not allow for such conversion.

VAIDYA, J. :- The main question aris­ing, in the above First Appeal, filed by the defendants in Special Civil Suit No. 79 of 1967, before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur, is whether, under the Hindu Law in force in Kolha­pur District, where the suit lands are situated, they were liable to be parti­tioned.

2. The suit was filed by the respon­dents Nos. 1 to 4 making the following allegations in the plaint: Plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 are the sons of one Bapu Anna Patil, who died on Oct. 31, 1956. Plaintiffs Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the sons of plaintiff No. 1, while defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are respectively son and grandson of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 4 Laxmibai is the sister of plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1.

3. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that Bapu Anna died as a member of the joint Hindu family and was acting as the Manager of the family till his death. It is further alleged that after the death of Bapu Anna, plaintiff No. 1 and defen­dant No. 1 divided the Rayatawa lands of Bapu Anna; and since then they were in actual possession thereof. According to plaintiff No. 1 the partition took place in Dec. 1956; while according to defen­dant No. 2, it took place in the beginning of 1959; but the exact year of the parti­tion is immaterial as it has absolutely no bearing upon the question which is to be decided in the present case.

4. It was alleged that the two lands comprised in the plaint were originally Patilki Watan lands. During the lifetime of Bapu Anna, he was the representative Watandar. According to the terms of the Patilki Watan, under the Vat Hukums of Kolhapur, these lands were impartible; and they devolved upon the seniormost member of the senior-branch by the rule of primogeniture. The suit lands are situated at Rukadi and had the total acreage of 15 acres 20 gunthas, as­sessed at Rs. 75.8 Ps. After the death of Bapu Anna the lands were, therefore, entered against the name of defendant No. 1.

5. According to the plaintiffs, when the Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Aboli­tion of Office) Act, 1962, came into force on Jan. 1, 1963, the Patil watans were abolished; and the original Watan lands became Rayatawa lands subject to parti­tion according to the provisions of the Act and the Hindu Law, the personal law applicable to the parties. The plain­tiffs claimed that since the abolition of the Watans, they had the right to claim one-half share in the lands.

6. The plaintiffs, therefore, claimed partition and separate possession of their one-half share in the suit lands. In the alternative, the plaintiffs claimed one-half share in the suit lands even assum­ing that these lands were the separate property of Bapu Anna during his life­time. It was also contended that defen­dant No. 4, the sister of plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 had no share in the property.

7. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 resisted the suit contending that although the lands had become Rayatawa lands after the coming into force of the Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Office) Act, 1962; and the previously existing Raya­tawa lands were divided by metes and bounds by the plaintiffs and the defen­dants, the suit lands vested, after the death of Bapu Anna, in defendant No. 1 as his separate property; and hence the plaintiffs cannot claim a share therein.

8. Furthermore, they contended that the suit lands were the separate property in the bands of Bapu Anna inasmuch as he got those properties as obstructed heritage from one Chandrabai. The de­fendants Nos. 1 to 3 further contended that defendant No. 1 had become the absolute owner thereof as he had paid the occupancy price of Rs. 464-12 P. after the Watans were abolished; and the lands were regranted in favour of defendant No. 1 alone. It was also contended that the present suit was barred by the Bom­bay Revenue Jurisdiction Act of 1876.

9. The learned Civil Judge by his judgment and decree, dated Oct. 31, 1968, overruled all the objections of the de­fendants; and passed a preli