Land attached to a village office, regranted under the abolition of village offices, retains its character as ancestral joint family property if the office was inheritable. Such property is available for partition among joint family members, as the regrant does not confer exclusive individual ownership.

ORAL JUDGMENT

This is the appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. by the appellant/one of the legal representatives of plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2008 in R.A.No.27/1992 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Belgaum sitting at Khanapur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’, for short) and to confirm the judgment and decree dated 10.01.1992 passed in O.S.No.213/1983 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff, Khanapur sitting at Khanapur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’, for short) and decreed the suit.

2. Parties would be referred with their ranks, as they were before Trial Court for sake of convenience and clarity.

3. Originally the plaintiff has filed the suit before Trial Court praying for partition and separate possession of 1/5th share in suit schedule property; for mesne profits from 1980-1981 to 1982-1983 and for future mesne profits; for Court costs and for such other reliefs.

4. The case of plaintiff before Trial Court in nutshell is that suit schedule property bearing R.S.No.53 measuring 9 acres 14 guntas situated at Manikwadi Village, Khanapur Taluk, originally was Shet-Sanadi Inam land and father of plaintiff-Sri Pandu Venkappa Mayekar was the authorized holder of the same and was rendering service as Sanadi. The genealogical tree of plaintiff's family is narrated in the plaint as follows:

Pandu (propositus)

Died in or about the year 1960

Mahadev (plff) - Venkappa (Deft.1) - Dhannappa (Deft.2) - Babu (Deft.3) - Govind (Deft.4)

Parashram (Deft.5) - Appaji (Deft.6) - Pandu (Deft.7)

5. According to it, the father of the plaintiff has five sons and they are plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4.

6. After service of notice, defendant Nos.4 to 7 has filed their written statement, wherein they contended that suit in the present form is not maintainable in law. All the joint family properties ought to have been included in the suit schedule. Hence, suit for partial partition is not maintainable in law. They further contended that, defendant No.3 has acquired the suit land by independently rendering Sanadi services to the Government. In lieu of services rendered by him, the Assistant Commissioner has granted it to him. There were continuous and several grounds of litigations between parties before revenue authorities and hence, the present suit is not maintainable in law.

7. The regrant order has reached its finality. Defendant No.3 is well within his right to transfer the land in question to his children in the manner in which they like. Plaintiff cannot object for it. He denied all other allegations made in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of suit with costs.

8. Afterwards defendant Nos. 4 to 7 got amended the written statement and inserted paragraph Nos.6 and 7 that suit is premature and it is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

9. Defendant No.2 filed his written statement, wherein he partly supported the contention of defendant No.4 regarding ownership of defendant No.4 about the suit schedule property. and contended that no joint family exists between plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4. All the brothers separated themselves and partitioned prior to 1954. It is not the property of family of brothers. Hence, prayed for dismissal of suit with c