They submitted that the Dhanora Zamindari was granted to Sitaram ancestor of Amarshah as an impartible estate, devolving by the rule of primogeniture that the Zamindari on that account devolved on the death of Amarshah upon Pratapshah and that on the death of Pratapshah and Zamindari devolved upon the first plaintiff.
The defendants by their written statement maintained that the genealogical table set up by the plaintiffs was incorrect, that by the order of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh dated November 9, 1951, the Zamindari was companyferred upon the 1st defendant Dayaram as he was found suitable to hold the, Zamindari and the decision of the Governor was binding upon the plaintiffs that the decision of the Compensation Officer regarding Malguzari lands which vested in companysequence of the enactment of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Estates, Mahals Alienated Lands Act 1 of 1951, had become binding and companyclusive against the plaintiffs because numbersuit challenging the deci sion was instituted within two months from the date thereof and the plaintiffs were on that account number entitled to claim the companypensation paid or payable in respect of the Malguzari lands that Amarshah did number execute the will set up by the plaintiffs and that Amarshah had made a will dated December 8, 1950 under which his estate was devised in favour of the defendants.
In appeal by the defendants, the High Court of Bombay company firmed the decree of the Trial Court with a slight modification.
The Deputy Commissioner companyfirmed the order by his decision dated August 8, 1951.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated August 2, 1965 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in Appeal No.
N. Phadke and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respondents.
113 of 1959 from original decree.
The plaintiffs submitted that Dayaram the first defendant took wrongful possession of the Zamindari and other property, movable and immovable of Amarshah.
S. Desai, V. N. Swamy, K. Rajendra Chaudhuri and K. R. Chaudhuri, for the appellants.
He also accepted the genealogy set up by Dayaram and held that there were numberother nearer male descendants in the branch and that Pratapshah was one degree more removed than Dayaram.
The orders passed by the Governor and the revenue authori ties do number exclude the jurisdiction of the civil companyrt to decide the question of kinship.
With certificate granted by the High Court the defendants have appealed to this Court.
The plaintiffs also claimed that the other property including Malguzari lands devolved upon them under a will executed on December 3, 1950 whereby Amarshah devised his estate in their favour.
The Trial Court held that the Dhanora Zamindari was impar tible and was governed by the rule of primogeniture and Pratapshah father of the plaintiffs being the eldest member of the seniormost branch from among the descendants of the companymon ancestor Gangashah was entitled to the Zamindari that the plaintiffs were entitled to receive companypensation in respect of the Malguzari lands and the decision of the Compensation Officer did number operate to deprive the plaintiff of the right to those lands or companypensation payable in respect thereof that the will set up by the plaintiffs dated December 3, 1950 was genuine and the plaintiffs were under the will entitled to the estate devised in their favour by Amarshah that the will dated December 8, 1950, set up by the defendants was a fabricated will and companyferred numberright or title upon the defendants and that the genealogical table set up by the plaintiffs represented the true relationship between the descendants of Gangashah.
number by the history of the Zamindari.
The proceedings were carried in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner.
Certain companycurrent findings on which number much argument was advanced at the Bar may first be set out.
Accordingly the first plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to the Zamindari on the death of Pratapshah on January 27, 1951 and the plaintiffs claimed the other estate of Amarshah as devisees under his will.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The branch of Hiru who was the eldest among the five sons of Gangashah because extinct with the death of Amarshah on December 6, 1950.
The plaintiffs relied upon the following genealogy Gangashah Niru Bhakta Sakru Kajur Raju Thakur Thakur Thakur ThakurThakur Sitaram Tanba Chatturshah Thakur Thakur dead Nilkanthshah Pratapshah Dawaltshah Ranwirshab Gulab Lallshah Platff Platff.
Shah dead No.
1 Deft.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, C.J. Dawalatshah and Ranwirshah sons of Pratapshah instituted an action in the Court of the Additional District Judge Chanda, for a decree for possession of property immovable including the Zamindari of Dhanora and movable specified in the Schedules annexed to the plaint, and for an order for payment of mesne profits and also for recovery of the amount of companypensation in respect of certain lands received by the defendants from the Government of Madhya Pradesh and for an order declaring their right to receive the balance of companypensation remaining to be paid.
Gangashah had five sons Hiru, Bhakta, Sakru, Kajur and Raju.
2 Govinda Budha Rama Laxman dead, The plaintiffs claimed that the property in suit originally belonged to Gangashah.
2433 of 1966.
2 dead Hanmantrao Amarshah Basu Chandarshah Karanshah Niranshah Died Dec. 9, dead dead 1950 Diwakarrao Died Sept., 8,1932 Ballarshah Karansbah Dayaram Indersbah Deft.
The branches of Sakru and Kajur became extinct a long time ago.
The plaintiffs claimed the Zamindari held by Amarshah relying upon the rule of primogeniture, and the other estate of Amarshah as devisees under the will of Amarshah executed on December 3, 1950.
