Judgment

GROVER, J. :- These appeals have been brought by special leave from a judgment of the Mysore High Court. The parties to the proceedings out of which the appeals have arisen belong to Handiagnur Desai Family which was a Watandar Family. The Family had different types of Watans and was governed by the Bombay Hereditary Officers Act 1864, popularly known as the Watan Act. The items of Watan included the offices of Kulkarni and Patil and other rights in respect of some village in the district of Dharwar. The family owned Watan as well as non-Watan lands apart from moveable property.

2. About the year 1910 certain disputes arose among the junior and the senior branches of the family regarding the partition and other arrangements relating to the property. The eldest branch of the family represented now by the respondents claimed rights on the basis of primogeniture, the junior members being entitled only to maintenance. Suit No. 166 of 1910 was filed in the court of the District Judge, Dharwar, by the predecessors-in-interest of the present appellants in which one of the reliefs claimed was for partition of the one half share of the plaintiffs in the immovable and movable properties described in schedule A annexed to the petition. In that suit a compromise was effected between the parties on the basis of which a decree was passed on January 11, 1913. It was declared that the suit property was impartible. It was further declared that as the suit property was impartible defendant No. 1 (in that suit) was the only owner of the said property in accordance with the custom of the family. The plaintiffs and defendants 2, 3 and 4 now represented by the appellants were declared as having no right of ownership but they had a right to maintenance. They were allotted certain lands by way of maintenance but the liability of payment of the Government dues like Judi assessment, local funds etc. was to be that of the eldest branch. In other words the eldest branch (represented by the present respondents) was to hold the property in question but the junior branch represented by the present appellant was to get possession of certain lands for maintenance . However the eldest branch being the owner was liable for the payment of the Government dues. It appears that prior to 1950 the State of Bombay decided to bring all the Watan property on the same line as Ryotwari property and subject it to payment of land revenue. Legislation was enacted abolishing various types of inams. One of such enactments was the Bombay Pargana and Kulkarni Watan (Abolition) Act 1950, hereinafter called the Act which came into force on May 1, 1951. The scheme of the Act broadly was to abolish the incidents of Watan and make Watan property liable to payment of land revenue. There were provisions with regard to regrant of the propertyd to the holder of the Watan. By virtue of the coming into operation of the Act the properties in dispute stood resumed to the Government. The appellants as holders took steps for regrant in accordance with the provisions of the Act and after paying the necessary occupancy price got the property regranted but those proceedings were not completed before July 27, 1956. In March 1955 the appellant M. B. Manle Desai filed a suit against Sardar Bullappa who represented the senior branch of the family for recovery of Rs. 1530-12-0 together with interest on account of the amount paid by way of Government dues for the years 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54 by reason of the terms contained in the compromise decree, Bullappa died during the pendency of the litigation and is now represented by the present respondents. A similar suit was filed by the other appellant Gangabai for recovery of Rs. 1437 with interest. According to the case of the plaintiffs in both the suits it was the defendant who was liable for payment of the Government dues although the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs were put in possession of the suit properties in lieu of maint