P 53 shows that the estate companysisted of 26 villages.
23 of 1934 against the present plaintiff and the Secretary of State or India in Council praying inter alia that the properties in that suit, viz.,
Malojirao separated himself from his brothers and was allotted seven villages.
High Courts judgment dated the 12th of March, 1908, makes it clear that as Government was number a party to that litigation its rights against either or both of the parties were number affected.
dated 16th December, 1948, in Second Appeal No.
The Collector should take steps to place the Saranjamdar in possession of the villages of the Saranjam estate which were in possession of the deceased Saranjamdar.
The Governor in Council agrees with the Commis sioner, Southern Division, that the assignments held by the Bhaubands as potgi holders should be companytinued to them as at present.
Each of the said de facto shares shall be companytinuable hereditarily as such as ii it were a separate Saranjam estate in accordance with the rules made for the companytinuance of Saranjams by the Governor in Council in exercise of the powers referred to in the rules framed under the Bombay Rent Free Estates Act, 1852, and section 2 3 of the Bombay Summary Settlement Act VII of 1863 and such special orders as the Governor in Council may make in regard to the Gajendragad Estate as a whole or in regard to the said share.
Bhujangrao I died in 1881 and his younger brother Yesh wantrao alias Annasaheb claimed to succeed as the sole heir.
But this was only with respect to property situate in British India.
The parties also had property in the State of Kolhapur.
The Bombay Government followed a similar companyrse regarding the property in British India.
The lower appellate Court also dismissed the suit on three grounds 1 that the two previous decisions of 1868 and 1908 operate as res judicata, 2 that the impugned Resolution is intra vires and 3 that section 4 a and d of the Revenue Jurisdiction Act bars the jurisdiction of the Court.
According to defendants 1 and 2, this was pursuant to an arrangement between the Government and themselves that Government would issue a fresh Resolution in terms of the earlier Resolution dated the 17th of March, 1891.
This was done.
the villages allotted to their shares, were their independent and private properties and in case they were held to be Saranjam proper ties, they be declared as independent Saranjams, separate and distinct from the one held by the present plaintiff.
1226 of 1945 companyfirming a judg ment and decree of the District Judge of Dharwar in Appeal No.
The other two brothers companytinued joint and took the remainder.
On the 26th of April, 1882, they passed a Resolution embodying the follow ing decision The adoption was to be recognised and the adopted son was to occupy the same position as his adoptive father, that is to say, he was to get one third of the property plus the assignment given to him as head of the family.
In companypliance with this, the companymon ancestor shown at the head of the genealogical tree set out above was recognised by the Brit ish Government as the Saranjamdar of the Gajendragad estate.
This was on the 3rd of February, 1882.
8969 of 7th June, 1932, under which plaintiff is entitled to be recognised as the sole Saranjamdar in the Revenue Records, and that the assignments held by defendants 1 and 2 are held by them as mere potgi holders.
The defendants were evidently aggrieved by this, for they filed Suit No.
Having regard, however, to the manner in which different portions of the estate have been held by different branches of the family, the Governor in Council, in modification of the orders companytained in Government Resolution No.
That in companysequence of his position of a sole Saran jamdar the plaintiff alone at any rate during his lifetime has the sole right to the rights and privileges appertaining to the post of a sole Saranjamdar, to wit, to be companysulted in the appointment of the village officers in all the villages appertaining to the Saranjam estate, but assigned to defendants 1 and 2 for potgi Defendants 1 and 2 be restrained from doing any acts or taking any steps in companytravention of the aforesaid right of the plaintiff.
The Political Department of the Government of India refused to recognise this claim and permitted Bhujangrao Is widow Krishnabai to adopt a a boy from the family and recog nised him as the heir in respect of that portion of the estate which lay within the Principality of Kolhapur.
On the death of the British Grantee Bhujangrao Appa saheb he was succeeded by his son Daulatrao I who died on the 24th of July, 1864.
After the District Deputy Collectors orders were passed on the 20th of May, 1930, Daulatrao II died on the 8th of May, 1931, and the matter was again taken up by Government.
The plaint states Government can have numberjurisdiction to deprive the plaintiff at any rate during his lifetime of the full bene fit of all the rights and privileges appertaining to the holder of a Saranjam.
The recognition of the aforesaid shares and their entry in the Revenue Records as separate shares shall number be deemed to amount to a recognition of the estate of Gajendragad as in any manner partible or alienable and shall number in any way affect the right of Government to treat the said estate as an entire impartible and inalien able Saranjam estate.
1769 dated the 17th of March, 1891,and to declare that the whole of the Gajendragad Estate shall be companytinuable as an inalienable and impartible Saranjam on the companyditions stated in the said Resolution.
After this decision was given the two partitioned the property between themselves amicably.
That it be declared that defendant 3 Government have numberright to change the Resolution No.
Somayya and Sanjiva Rao Naidu N. C. Shaw, with them for the appellant.
The plaintiff claims to be the sole Saranjamdar and seeks certain declarations and other reliefs appropriate to such a claim.
3 the State of Bombay.
The Bhujangrao mentioned in the Resolution is the plain tiff who is shown as Bhujangrao III in the genealogical tree.
2 died 8 5 1931 Bhujangrao III Plaintiff The facts are as follows.
CIVIL APPPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Bombay Bhagwati and Dixit JJ.
The cause of action arose in April 1938 and the resolution and the entry being ultra vires is number binding As this is a suit claiming for relief primarily against defendants 1 and 2, defendant 3 is made a party to the suit in order to enable Government defendant 3 to give proper effect to the decision of Government of the 17th March, 1891, and of 7th June, 1932, as against defendants 1 and 2 who have numberright to the position which they claim The reliefs prayed for are That it be declared that defendants 1 and 2 have numberright to go behind the order of the Government as per Reso lution No.
The judgment is dated the 12th of October, 1868.
8969 dated the 7th June, 1932, is pleased to direct that the portions of the said estate held by Sardar Bhujangrao Daulatrao Ghorpade, Daulatrao Malojirao Ghorpade and Bhujangrao Yeshwantrao Ghorpade, respectively, shall henceforth be entered in the Revenue Records as de facto shares in the said estate held by the said persons as representatives, respectively, of three branches of the Ghorpade family.
When they arrived on the scene they decided, as far as possible, to companytinue such Saranjams, jagirs and inams as had been grant ed by the earlier rulers, and accordingly they framed rules under Schedule B, Rule 10 of Bombay Act XI of 1852 The Bombay Rent Free Estates Act of 1852 to regulate the mode of recognition and the succession and companyditions of tenure to Saranjams, which are analogous to jagirs.
The Order of Government of the 8th February, 1936 is, therefore, ultra vires and in numberway binding on the present plaintiff Defendants 1 and 2, therefore, are number entitled to any rights or privileges claimable by the holder of a Saran jam which according to the G.R. is companytinuable as an inali enable and impartible Saranjam, such as for example in the matter of appointment of the village officers in any of the 27 villages appertaining to the Gajendragad Saranjam.
That was left undivided.
Judgment was delivered by BOSE J. PATANJALI SASTRI C.J. and DAS J. agreed with Bose J. Bose J. The plaintiff appeals.
The first and second defendants are members of the plaintiffs family while the third defendant is the State of Bombay Province of Bombay at the date of the suit .
11 of 1950.
It reads Resolution The Governor in Council is pleased to direct that the Gajendragad Saranjam should be formally resumed and regranted to Bhujangrao Daulatrao Ghorpade eldest son of the deceased Saranjamdar Sardar Daulatrao Bhujangrao Ghorpade and that it should be entered in his sole name in the accounts of the Collector of Dharwar with effect from the date of the death of the last holder.
The Register Ex.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, G. N. Joshi, with him for respondent No.
We do number know the date of the British recognition but the nature of the tenure is described as follows Continuable to all male legitimate descendants of the holder at the time of British companyquest, viz.,
If an order passed by Government under Rule VII is number carried out, Government may, whatever the reason may be, direct the Saranjam, or a portion of it, to be resumed Provision for the members of the Saranjam dars family entitled to maintenance shall then be made by Government out of the revenues of the Saranjam so resumed.
This time it passed the following Resolution on the 7th of June, 1932.
The Resolution was headed, Resumption and regrant of the Gajendragad Saranjam standing at No.
91 of the Saranjam List.
January 30.
The facts of the case and the arguments of the companynsel appear in the judgment.
This suit was withdrawn with liberty to bring a fresh suit on the same cause of action against the present plain tiff but number against the Secretary of State for India in Council.
1 and 2.
A companymon ancestor of the present parties was given the Gajendragad estate as a Saran jam some time before the advent of the British.
123 of 1943.
As a companysequence a division of the property was ef fected.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, V. N. Lokur, with him for the respondents Nos.
In the year 1866 Bhujangrao I and his brother Yesh wantrao alias Annasaheb sued Malojirao for possession of this Saranjam.
Bhujangrao Appasaheb, the first British Grantee, son of Bahirojirao Ghorpade.
This Daulatrao I left three sons, Bhujangrao I, Yeshwantrao and Malojirao.
