Case: Bhujangarao Daulatrao Vs. Malojirao Daulatrao &amp; Others

not relate to land and in any event are not claims against the Crown.35. In my opinion, this is not a suit in which the rights claimed against the other defendants can be divorced from the claim against Government and considered separately. That is evident enough from para. 10 of the plaint. In para 9 the power of Government to deprive the plaintiff of the rights he claims is challenged and in para. 10 the plaintiff explains that therefore defendants 1 and 2 are not entitled to any of the rights and privileges of the Saranjamdar. One of those rights, as we have seen from Rr. VII and IX is to take the revenues of the entire estate in order that he might fulfil his obligation regarding the payment of maintenance to certain members of the family; and if the defendants claim to hold their lands under the orders of Government and the plaintiff insists on retaining Government as a party in order that it may be bound by the decree he wants against the other defendants it is obvious that his claim against these defendants cannot be separated from this claim against the Government. 36. In any event, if the claim against Government is to be ignored it can only be on the basis that its orders cannot be challenged and if the orders stand it is evident that the plaintiff can have no hope of success because both sides hold their respective properties on the basis of those orders. 37. There are two decisions of the Bombay High Court which have taken his view. Basalingappagouda v. Secy. of State,28 Bom. L. R. 651, was a Watan case. Government had recognised the second defendant as the Watandar. Plaintiff sued Government and the second defendant and sought a declaration and injunction. On being faced with the dilemma that the suit against Government did not lie because of S. 4 (a) (3) of Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act of 1876, he asked the Court, as here to leave the Government out of consideration and decree his claim against the second defendant alone. The learned Judges held that that would amount to striking out the main relief sought against both the defendants and would entirely change the character of the suit and added that as long as the Secretary of State is a party to the suit, such a declaration could not be granted. 38. In the other case, Basangauda v. Secy. of State,32 Bom. L. R. 1370, Beaumont C. J. and Baker. J. took the same view. They said : Mr. Gumaste, who appears for the appellant, says that his claim is not a claim against the Government but in that case he ought to strike out the Government. He is not prepared to strike out the Government, because if he does they will not be bound by these proceedings and will follow the decision of their revenue tribunals. Therefore, he wants to make the Government a party in order that they may be bound. But, if they remain a party, it seems to me that there is a claim against them relating to property appertaining to the office of an hereditary officer, although no doubt it is quite true that the appellant does not desire to get any order against the Government as to the way in which the property should be dealt with or anything of the sort, and he only wants a declaration as to his title which will bind Government. 39. That held that the jurisdiction of the Courts was ousted. 40. It was next contended, on the strength of a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council reported in Province of Bombay v. Hormusji Manekji,74 Ind. App. 103, that the Courts have jurisdiction to decide whether Government acted in excess of its powers and that that question must be decided first. In my opinion, this decision does not apply here. 41. Their Lordships were dealing with a case falling under S. 4 (b), Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act of 1876. That provides that: ....... no Civil Court shall exercise jurisdiction as to ...... * * * * (b) objections to the amount or incidence of any assessment of land revenue authorized by the Provincial Government. 42. As pointed out by Strangman K. C., on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, authorised must mean duly authorised, and in that particular case the impugned assessment would not be duly authorised if the Government Resolution of 11-4-1930 purporting to treat the agreement relied on by the respondent as cancelled and authorising the levy of the full assessment was ultra vires under S. 211 of the Land Revenue Code. Thus, before the exclusion of the Civil Courts jurisdiction under S. 4 (b) could come into play the Court had to determine the issue of ultra vires. Consequently, their Lordships held that that question was outside the scope of the bar. But the position here is different. We are concerned here with S. 4 (a) and under that no question about an authorised act of Government arises. The section is general and barsall claims against the Crown relating to lands . . . . . held as Saranjam. That is to say even if the Governments act in relation to such lands was ultra vires,a claim impugning the validity of such an act would fall within the scope of the exclusion in clause (a) provided it relates to such land. 43. There is a difference of opinion in the Bombay High Court as to whether S. 4 is attracted if the only relief sought against Government is a declaration. One set of decisions holds that does not amount to a claim against Government .Dattatraya Vishwanath v. Secretary of State, I.L.R. (1948) Bom 809 at p. 820, is typical of that view. On the other hand Daulatrao v. Govt. of Bombay,47 Bom. L. R. 214, a case relating to the Gajendragad estate, took the other view. In my opinion, the latter view is correct.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]30. It was strenuously contended that this is not a claim against the Crown but one against defendants 1 andThat, in my opinion, is an idle contention in view of paras. 9 and 12 of the plaint and reliefs (a) and (d). In any event, Mr. Somayya was asked whether he would strike out defendant 3 and those portions of the plaint which sought relief against it. He said he was not prepared to do so.I cannot see how a plaintiff can insist on retaining a person against whom he claims no relief as a party. I am clear that this is a suit against the Crown within the meaning of S. 4 (a)31. The next question is whether, assuming that to be the case, it is also one relating to lands held as Saranjam.So far as the reliefs sought against Government are concerned, that is clearly the case. Paragraph 9 of the plaint challenges Governments jurisdiction to deprive the plaintiff of the full benefit of all rights and privileges appertaining to the holder of a Saranjam. These rights cannot exist apart from the lands which form part of the Saranjam estate and the implication of the prayer is that Government has, for example, no right to resume the Saranjam either under Rule 5 on the death of the last Saranjamdar or under R. 9 during his lifetime. It is to be observed that a resumption under R. 9 can only be of the land because the rule directs that when the Saranjam is resumed Government itself shall make provision for the maintenance of those entitled to it out of the revenue of the Saranjam so resumed. These revenues can only come out of the land32. Relief (d) in the prayer clause seeks a declaration that Government have no right to change Resolution No. 8969 dated 7th June 1932. That Resolution directly relates to the land because it directs that the Gajendragad Saranjam be resumed and the Collector is directed to take steps to place the Saranjamdar in possession of the villages of the Saranjamestate etc33. It is impossible to contend that this is not a claim relating to lands held as Saranjam37. There are two decisions of the Bombay High Court which have taken his view. Basalingappagouda v. Secy. of State,28 Bom. L. R. 651, was a Watan case. Government had recognised the second defendant as the Watandar. Plaintiff sued Government and the second defendant and sought a declaration and injunction. On being faced with the dilemma that the suit against Government did not lie because of S. 4 (a) (3) of Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act of 1876, he asked the Court, as here to leave the Government out of consideration and decree his claim against the second defendant alone. The learned Judges held that that would amount to striking out the main relief sought against both the defendants and would entirely change the character of the suit and added that as long as the Secretary of State is a party to the suit, such a declaration could not be granted38. In the other case, Basangauda v. Secy. of State,32 Bom. L. R. 1370, Beaumont C. J. and Baker. J. took the same view. They said :Mr. Gumaste, who appears for the appellant, says that his claim is not a claim against the Government but in that case he ought to strike out the Government. He is not prepared to strike out the Government, because if he does they will not be bound by these proceedings and will follow the decision of their revenue tribunals. Therefore, he wants to make the Government a party in order that they may be bound. But, if they remain a party, it seems to me that there is a claim against them relating to property appertaining to the office of an hereditary officer, although no doubt it is quite true that the appellant does not desire to get any order against the Government as to the way in which the property should be dealt with or anything of the sort, and he only wants a declaration as to his title which will bind Government39. That held that the jurisdiction of the Courts was ousted40. It was next contended, on the strength of a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council reported in Province of Bombay v. Hormusji Manekji,74 Ind. App. 103, that the Courts have jurisdiction to decide whether Government acted in excess of its powers and that that question must be decided first.In my opinion, this decision does not apply here42. As pointed out by Strangman K. C., on behalf of the, authorised must mean duly authorised,and in that particular case the impugned assessment would not be duly authorised if the Government Resolution of0 purporting to treat the agreement relied on by the respondent as cancelled and authorising the levy of the full assessment was ultra vires under S. 211 of the Land Revenue Code. Thus, before the exclusion of the Civil Courts jurisdiction under S. 4 (b) could come into play the Court had to determine the issue of ultra vires. Consequently, their Lordships held that that question was outside the scope of the bar. But the position here is different. We are concerned here with S. 4 (a) and under that no question about an authorised act of Government arises. The section is general and barsall claims against the Crown relating to lands . . . . . held as Saranjam. That is to say even if the Governments act in relation to such lands was ultra vires,a claim impugning the validity of such an act would fall within the scope of the exclusion in clause (a) provided it relates to such land43. There is a difference of opinion in the Bombay High Court as to whether S. 4 is attracted if the only relief sought against Government is a declaration. One set of decisions holds that does not amount to a claim against Government .Dattatraya Vishwanath v. Secretary of State, I.L.R. (1948) Bom 809  at p. 820, is typical of that view. On the other hand Daulatrao v. Govt. of Bombay,47 Bom. L. R. 214, a case relating to the Gajendragad estate, took the other view. In my opinion, the latter view is correct