Ramachandra Dagdu Sonavane(D)By Lrs& ... vs Vithu Hira Mahar(Dead) By Lrs.& Ors

2) To appreciate the contentions of the parties, the facts in extenso requires to be noticed and they are:- The suit land was of the category of Mahar Watanlands situated in village Pimpre Khurd, Purandhar Taluk, District Pune. The suit lands originally belonged to Ramabai, wife of Pandu Sonawane and Radhabai wife of Sawale Sonavane. Both of them did not have any issues. The appellants had claimed that their forefathers were the nearest relatives of both the ladies and the property being watanlands, the same vested in them. The appellants had further claimed that Vithu Hira Mahar (for short `Vithu') had no right, title or interest in the watanlands, however, was cultivating the suit lands after getting the entries made in the records of rights. It was the case of the plaintiffs/appellants before the trial court, that, when it came to the notice of respective fathers of the plaintiffs, as well as plaintiff No.2, an application dated 14.08.1940, was filed before the District Deputy Collector for resumption of watanlands which were in possession of Vithu. In the application filed, it was the stand of the applicants that they were the nearest relatives of Ramabai and that Vithu got his name entered 2 in the record of rights fraudulently after the death of Ramabai. They had further contended that Vithu is an outsider and belongs to different family and as such his name could not have been entered in the Peta Account Book. After recording the statement of both the parties, the Deputy District Collector had passed an order dated 18.06.1941, directing the suit lands be returned to the applicants on the ground that the entries in the Peta Account Book made in Vithu's name pursuant to an order said to have been passed in the year 1931 was not traceable and therefore, it is not clear how the name of a person not connected with the family of Watandar was entered in the cash allowance register and, therefore, the watanland requires to be resumed and handed over to the applicants who are the nearest family members of the deceased Watandar and further had directed that the circumstances under which Vithu's name came to be entered in the revenue records was suspicious and the same should be investigated.

3) Vithu (respondent no.1) was the grandson of Ramabai. It is his assertion that he had filed an application on 16.07.1931 before the Mamlatdar under Section 15 and 18 of the Bombay Hereditary Office Act, 1874, to recognize him as the Watandar with respect to the suit lands. The Mamlatdar said to have passed an order dated 22.10.1931 3 in favour of Vithu under Section 15 and 18 of the said Bombay Hereditary Office Act, to enter his name in the Peta Account Book, in the place of Ramabai after declaring that Vithu was the adopted son of Ramabai.

4) Sometime in the year 1953, the appellants had filed a suit, O.S. No.104 of 1953, against Vithu and others for an order of permanent injunction before the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Saswad, to restrain Vithu and the other respondents from interfering with their peaceful possession of the suit land, on the ground that the Deputy District Collector had passed an order in their favour and that Vithu and others were obstructing their peaceful possession of the suit land. The appellants had also based their claim on the finding arrived at by the Collector of Pune in his order dated 18.6.1941, that they were the representative of Watandars with respect to the suit land. Vithu and the other respondents had resisted the relief sought in the suit, inter- alia contending that there was an earlier suit filed by the appellants against their tenant to whom the suit land had been leased and they have not obtained valid permission to withdraw the said suit and therefore the present suit is barred by res judicata. The Trial Court in its judgment and decree after considering the rival contentions of the 4 parties to the lis, had concluded, apart from others, that the Prant Officer had issued a notice in 1951 to the respondents restraining them from obstructing the vahiwat of the appellants; that the doctrine of res judicata did not apply as the previous suit filed by the appellants was different from the present suit. The trial court while considering the other rival contentions of the parties had specifically framed the following two important issues for its consideration and decision. They were:

10) Vithu had filed another application in the year 1976, requesting for supply of certified copies of the order passed in the year 1931 before Mamaltadar. After obtaining the xerox copy of the said order, had filed application before the State Government, inter-alia stating that he 8 had been dispossessed on the basis of not being in possession of the relevant documents relating to the 1931 order passed in his favour by the Mamlatdar after holding an inquiry under Section 15 and 18 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874, and, therefore, had requested the State Government to direct the Collector to initiate proceedings to regrant and restore possession of suit land.

44)We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court in all the appeals. The result is that the appeals are allowed, but in the peculiar circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.