Case: Bhagwantrao Vs. Vishwasrao And Another

of the family, and his comment is that the "patelki inam" lands in Berar stand on a footing different from karnam service lands in Madras and there are decisions in which it has been held that co-shares have a right to a share in service grants in Berar. The first decision to which our attention has been drawn is Krishnarao v. Nilkantha, AIR 1922 Nag 52. That was a case of a jagir, and it was held that it came under the third class, and nothing regarding service was mentioned in the terms of the original sanad. The decision proceeded on the basis that the ordinary rule is that if persons are entitled beneficially to share in an estate, they may have a partition. It was further held that property consisting of an ordinary inam village was liable to partition at the suit of co-sharer except when it was held on a saranjam or other impartible tenure or where the terms of the grant impose a condition upon its enjoyment. We do not think that this decision establishes what the appellant is seeking to establish in this case, that is, that he has a share in the emoluments of the patels office. The next decision is that of the Privy Council in Subhan Ali v. Imami Begum, 21 Nag LR 117 : (AIR 1925 PC 184 ); all that was laid down there was that the devolution and incidents of an inam estate in Berar were regulated by the Inam Rules, 1859, but only in matters not mentioned in the sanad or certificate or other documents evidencing the special terms of the grant in the particular case. The fundamental question at issue there was one of construction, namely, whether the beneficial interest in the Inam granted to a common ancestor of the parties and continued by the British Government in 1866 passed under the terms of the grant then made to all heirs of the grantees according to Shia Mahomedan Law or whether the interest devolved on the male descendants only. It was not a service grant, and no question of a share in the emoluments of the patels office arose there. In Lakhamgouda Basavprubhu Sardesai v. Baswantrao, AIR 1931 PC 157 , the Privy Council pointed out the distinction between the granted of an office to be remunerated by the use of land and the grant of land burdened with service; it said that in the former case, the land would be prima facie resumable but not so in the latter case, unless the terms of the grant or the circumstances in which it was made established that it was resumable. In the case of Sahebrao Narayanrao v. Jaiwantrao Yadaorao, 29 Nag LR 210 : (AIR 1933 PC 171 ), the inam certificate issued to the head of the senior branch of a family of Deshmukh watandars stated that the village was granted "for personal maintenance to the claimant, his descendants and co-sharers"; accordingly, it was held that a co-sharer was entitled to possession of his share appearing from the inam statement. In Shrinivasrao v. Vinayakrao, ILR (1949) Nag 1 : (AIR 1949 PC 9 ), there was grant of two villages to the great-grandfather of the appellant and the respondent, who were brothers and "his lineal heirs" or "his successors". The question was whether primogeniture was to be the order of descent or the estate was impartible. It was held that the ordinary principles of Hindu Law were applicable and the earlier decision in 21 Nag LR 117 : (AIR 1925 PC 184 ), was referred to. Here again the grant was not a service grant, and no question of a claim of a share in the emoluments of office fell even for consideration, not to speak of decision. 17. We consider it unnecessary to multiply decisions. It is enough to state that no decision has been brought to our notice in which it has been held that a member of the patels family is entitled as of right to a share in the emoluments of the patels office and that Government has no right to resume "patelki inam" lands and regrant the same to the officiator. 18. It remains now to consider the special claim with regard to survey numbers 2/1A and 9/1A. The case of the appellant was that these two plots ceased to be inam lands, when they fell in the resumed portion of the Jagir; they were sold by Bannoobi Begum and Mahmudi Begum, the jagirdars, and the appellants and his brother Amrit brought suits and obtained decrees in respect of these two plots and in execution of the decrees they obtained possession. The learned trial Judge rightly point out that the decrees aforesaid related to property other than plots 2/1A and 9/1A. Moreover, it is not disputed that the entire "patelki inam" lands in possession of Amritrao Patel, including the plots which were made khalsa in 1904-05, were excluded from resumption and Amrits "patelki inam" lands were treated as a homogenous unit by the orders passed on August 28, 1922. The two plots, 2/1A and 9/1A, therefore, stand on the same footing as other "patelki inam" lands of Amritrao. 19. The claim of title by adverse possession can be disposed of in a few words. Once it is held that the lands were given by way of emoluments for the patels office, no question of title by adverse possession arises against Government, even though the lands were shown as excluded from the jagir of Nawabag in 1866. Amrit worked as patel till he died in 1920, and even though the appellant got possession by partition in 1923, it was open to Government to resume the lands in 1941 and regrant the same to respondent No. 1 The appellant can only succeed if he establishes that he had a right to a share in the "patelki inam" lands and Government had no right to resume the same. This the appellant has failed to establish.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]5. As a result of a detailed enquiry, survey numbers 1 to 21 and 40 to 45 of the "patelki inam" lands fell in the resumed portion and survey numbers 22 to 39 were included in the jagir portion. As survey numbers 2/1A and 9/1A in possession of the Rokade family fell in the resumed portion, they were recorded as Khalsa and were assessed to revenue, while the remaining survey numbers viz. 29/1, 34/3, 36/2 and 37/2 continued to be in possession of the Rokade family free of assessment. There was another resumption proceeding in or about 1917 when it was discovered that the jagirdas had alienated lands falling in the jagir portion also. This time the lands resumed were not made Khalsa but were regranted to the jagirdars. As a result of this regrant the jagirdars thought that they were entitled to take possession of the "patelki inam" lands of the Rokade family also. This led to some more revenue proceedings, and we come now to one of the important documents in this case, viz, a letter dated August 28, 1922, by which sanction of Government was conveyed to the6. Now, apart from the alternative claim with regard to survey numbers 2/1A and 9/1A and the claim of title by adverse possession, which claims we shall consider later, the principal question which falls for decision in this appeal, is the true nature of these "patelki inam" lands; do they constitute a grant by way of remuneration or emoluments of the patels office by the use of the lands, as found by the High Court, or do they constitute a grant of land to the patelki family burdened with service and so long as the service is performed by any member of the family, the lands are joint family lands subject to partition etc., among the members of the family? On behalf of the appellant, it has been very strongly contended before us that the finding of the High Court on this point is wrong. On this part of the case learned counsel for the appellant has made a four-fold submission; firstly, that the rights which the Rokade family had in these lands were rights of dealing with the property as owners, subject to a member of the family rendering patelki service; or in other words, the grant was a grant of land burdened with service, secondly, the grant was made by the jagirdar of village Nawabag and not by the sovereign authority and neither the Inam Rules, nor the provisions of the Patels and Patwaris Law, 1900 applied; thirdly, even if the aforesaid Rules and provisions applied, the appellant still retained his herditary rights in the lands; and fourthly, the orders of Government dated August 28, 1922, did not confer any new right nor did they deprive anybody of any subsisting right in respect of the "petelki inam" lands and Government had no right to resume the lands and regrant them to respondent No. 18. There is, therefore, overwhelming evidence in this case to show that the patelki inams were separate from and independent of the jagir of Nawabag, though the lands lay within the jagir village9. This brings us to the more important question-what is the true character of the "patel inam" lands of this case? On this point also, we think that there is clear and unimpeachable evidence in support of the finding of the High Court. We have already referred to the Kararnama of 1771 and the inam entry of 1866. If the grants were a grant of land to the patelki families burdened with service, it is difficult to understand how there could arise a dispute about remuneration between the jagirdars and patels and why the remuneration of 1 1/2 bighas per netan should be fixed from year to year., In a revenue case of 1908 Amrit Patel had himself stated that the land was given to his ancestors in lieu of patelki huq and it should not be assessed to land revenue. Even in his plaint, the appellant had asserted that the "Patels were given certain lands out of the jagir village for their working as patels and for discharging other duties." There is another important document in this connection. In the second resumption proceedings of 1917 Government had first decided to resume the jagir and regrant it to the then Jagirdar Amerulla Khan. In the orders passed (Ex. 1D-18) it was stated that the Jagirdars would be at liberty to allow the working patels to hold such lands as were considered reasonable by the Deputy Commissioner free of revenue and in lieu of mushahara (emoluments or wages). It is important to note that everybody understood then that the "patelki inam" was in lieu of wages or emoluments for the office of patel. These orders led to an enquiry, and Amritrao made a statement that he was holding survey numbers 26, 27, 29, 34, 36 and 37 in lieu of patelki emoluments. He said that he was even willing to hold 4 acres 17 gunthas of survey No. 27 in lieu of his emoluments. It appears that the Sub-divisional officer then recommended that Amrit Patel should be given only 4 acres 17 gunthas, as emoluments for his office. Later, an application was made on behalf of Amrit17. We consider it unnecessary to multiply decisions. It is enough to state that no decision has been brought to our notice in which it has been held that a member of the patels family is entitled as of right to a share in the emoluments of the patels office and that Government has no right to resume "patelki inam" lands and regrant the same to the officiator18. It remains now to consider the special claim with regard to survey numbers 2/1A and 9/1A. The case of the appellant was that these two plots ceased to be inam lands, when they fell in the resumed portion of the Jagir; they were sold by Bannoobi Begum and Mahmudi Begum, the jagirdars, and the appellants and his brother Amrit brought suits and obtained decrees in respect of these two plots and in execution of the decrees they obtained possession. The learned trial Judge rightly point out that the decrees aforesaid related to property other than plots 2/1A and 9/1A. Moreover, it is not disputed that the entire "patelki inam" lands in possession of Amritrao Patel, including the plots which were made khalsa in 1904-05, were excluded from resumption and Amrits "patelki inam" lands were treated as a homogenous unit by the orders passed on August 28, 1922. The two plots, 2/1A and 9/1A, therefore, stand on the same footing as other "patelki inam" lands of Amritrao19. The claim of title by adverse possession can be disposed of in a few words. Once it is held that the lands were given by way of emoluments for the patels office, no question of title by adverse possession arises against Government, even though the lands were shown as excluded from the jagir of Nawabag in 1866. Amrit worked as patel till he died in 1920, and even though the appellant got possession by partition in 1923, it was open to Government to resume the lands in 1941 and regrant the same to respondent No. 1 The appellant can only succeed if he establishes that he had a right to a share in the "patelki inam" lands and Government had no right to resume the same. This the appellant has failed to establish.