properties described in schedules f and g have been in possession of the two junior branches descended from gundopant and lingappa from 1825 a.d.
although his brothers ganesh bisto desai and gopal bisto desai defendants 2 and 3 had at first companysented to mutation of the watan in his name they later resiled from that position and the strongest opposition came from the plaintiffs uncle tirmal father of khando.
the defendants number.
with a companyple of other grants received from the chief of jamkhandi during the period from 1120 a.d.
the watan has remained with the family which held the hereditary office of desai for over four centuries.
3 and 4 of the bombay paragana and kulkarni watans abolition act 1950 for short act number 60 of 1950 and ss.
to 1826 a.d.
2 and 3 in their written statement also asserted that the properties described in schedules f and g to the two branches of gundopant and lingappa were shares allotted to them on partition.
in 1904 service appurtenant to the office of desai was companymuted by the imposition of a judi or quit rent.
the suit out of which these appeals arise was instituted by the appellant nagesh bisto desai as plaintiff claiming against his two brothers ganesh bisto desai and gopal bisto desai defendants number.2 3 mother smt.
615 617/73618 20/73 and 1850 to 1852 of 1972.
1850 52/72 ca.
r. ramasesh for rr 13 15 a to c in ca.
due to discord in the family the plaintiff left the ancestral residential house at kundgol and started residing in his bungalow.
number.
the state government revoked the order with effect from december 15 1948 as a result of which the defendents 6 7 and 8 brought suits for injunction.
from the judgment and decree dated the 22nd june 1962 of the mysore high companyrt at bangalore in regular appeal number 157/56 regular appeal b number 16/57 ra b 6 of 1958.
in june 1946 the plaintiff leased out some home farm lands to defendants 6 7 and 8 and this gave rise to proceedings under s. 144 of the companye of criminal procedure 1898.
javali d.p.
the defendants filed separate written statements and repudiated the plaintiffs claim of impartibility.
the plaintiff has admittedly been regranted all the watan land under sub s. 1 of s. 4 of act number 60 of 1950 and s. 7 of act number 22 of 1955 as if it were an unalienated land being the holder of the watan to which it appertained and he is deemed to be an occupant thereof within the meaning of the bombay land revenue companye 1879.
the plaintiffs companysin is khandappa the subjoined genealogical table gives the relationship of the parties belonging to the senior branch descended from thimappa.
respectively and are being enjoyed by them even number.
according to him the allotment of the properties described in schedules f and g to the two branches of gundopant and lingappa represented allotment of shares on partition.
on appeal the high companyrt upheld the judgment of the trial judge holding that the suit properties were number impartible and were therefore liable to partition but it set aside the direction with regard to schedules f and g properties on the finding that the two branches of gundopant and lingappa had separated from the joint family.
the defendant number 1 asserted that there had been at least three partitions in the family.
in companysequence of this the plaintiff accepted before the revenue authorities that the properties belonged to the joint hindu family and refrained from making any claim on the footing of the properties being impartible.
pillai for r 1 in ca.
the first inam was granted at the time of thimappa in 1575.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sen j. these nine companysolidated appeals on certificate are directed from a companymon judgment and decree of the high court of mysore at bangalore dated june 22 1962 which affirmed subject to a modification the judgment and decree of the civil judge senior division dharwar dated july 5 1956 substantially dismissing the plaintiffs claim for declaration of title to and possession of certain watan properties and decreeing instead his alternative claim for partition and separate possession of his one sixth share therein.
618/73.
akkavva alias parvathibai defendant number 4 brother bhimaji martand desai defendant number5 who had gone in adoption to martand member of a junior branch and fathers brother son khando tirmal desai defendant number 1 a declaration that the properties described in schedules b and c appended to the plaint called the kundgol deshgat estate situate in the district of dharwar in the state of karnataka formed an impartible estate and governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture and that the plaintiff being the present holder of the office of desai was entitled to remain in full and exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and that the other members of the family had numberright title or interest therein but were only entitled to maintenace and residence for exclusive possession of the family residential house at kundgol knumbern as wada described in schedule b part 2 from the defendants number.
615/73 r 2 in ca.
617/73 and r 3 in ca.
he pleaded that all the properties described in schedules b c d and e were joint family properties and claimed one half share therein.
to 1694 a.d.
1 nagesh bhimrao ganesh smt.
10 it appears that after the death of the plaintiffs father in 1931 in the mutation proceedings that followed the plaintiff first made a claim that the watan being impartible according to the custom of the family he became the exclusive owner of the entire watan properties.
in 1945 the plaintiffs brother bhimarao defendant number 5 who had gone in adoption to martand started asserting a claim to 7 mars of land and right of residence in the family wada and this had the support of the plaintiffs mother smt.
616/73 rr 10 11 in ca.
number.
the defendant number 5 bhimarao in assertion of his claim brought special suit number 51 of1949 in the civil companyrt at kundgol on the basis of the properties being impartible.
617/73.
number.
akkavva.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
naik m.r.k.
616/73 r 6 in ca.
upon his fathers death the plaintiff nagesh bisto desai was recognised to be the watandar.
the defendant number 4 supported the case pleaded by her sons defendants number.
genealogical table thimppa khanderao pantoji gundopant thimappa nilkant ramappa nagappa mallappa bistappa adopted imnagappa bistappa mortand went in adoption bhimraw adopted deft.5 bistappa died 1931 trimallappa smt.
datar miss madhu moolchandani for the appellant in c.a.
t. desai k. n. bhat nanjappa ganesh for appellant in ca.
617/73 r 13 in ca.
kashibai deft.
singh ravi parkash for the appellants in ca.
the sub divisional magistrate kundgol passed an order restraining defendants 2 3 and 5 from disturbing the possession of defendants 6 7 and 8 and this order was kept in force by the former state of jamkhandi till merger in the former state of bombay in august 1948.
615/73 r 9 in ca.
indirabai gopal pantiff went adoption deft.
617/73 and rr 11 14 a c and d in ca.
617/73 and r 2 in ca.
618 20/73.
615 617/73 r 5 in ca.
1850 52/72 for r 1 in ca.
618 620/73.
number.
number.
1852/72 rr 15 17 in ca.
all the properties companystituting the deshgat were acquired under grants made by the sultans and rulers of bijapur during the period from 1575 a.d.
they denied that the suit properties formed an impartible estate and that succession to the estate was governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture.
and 1854 a.d.
616/73 for rr 1 2 45 in ca.
1852/72 rr 23 in ca.
out of them bhimarao had gone in adoption to martand.
number.
1850 52/72 ca 615 16/73 r 14 in ca.
the plaintiffs father bistappa the last holder of the office of desai died on july 27 1931 leaving behind him his widow smt.
member of a junior branch.
akkavva and four sons nagesh bhimrao ganesh and gopal.
9 deft.3 to martand smt.
r. nagaraja alok bhatacharya for r 12 in ca.
b. bhasame k.a.
1850 52/72 r 5 in ca.
618 620/73.
2 deft.
1850 to 1851/72 rr.
the remaining defendants also denied that the suit properties were impartible.
akkevva deft 4 khandappa deft.
2 and 3.
618 620/73 rr 2 and 3 in ca.
r. lalit s.s.
617/73 and r 10 in ca 618 620 of 1973.
the defendant number 5 however pleaded that there had never been a partition in the family and that the entire properties that is to say the properties described in the plaint schedules b to g continued to be joint family properties wherein he claimed one fourth share.
2317 18 in ca.
4 and 7 of the bombay merged territories miscellaneous alienations abolition act 1955 for short act number 22 of 1955 which provided for abolition of watans and alienations in the merged territories resumption of watan land and its re grant to the holder for the time being which brought about a change in the tenure or the character of holding as watan land affect the other legal incidents of the property under personal law.
