1000 and two acres and one gunta out of s. number 62/3 was mortgaged to virgonda and four other persons.
this term it was numbericed was number companyfined to orders passed by the ruler but also referred to those orders which were issued by the chief justice by sarsubha the companymissioner of revenue division and also even by sub divisional officers like the prant officer who companyresponded to the deputy companylector.
but it was number every wat hukum that had the force of law.
it was also companytended that the mortgage in 1915 by the first defendant in favour of hanamgonda was also companytrary to wat hukums and therefore void.
it was the case of the plaintiff that after the death of hanmgond balgonda the first defendant repaid the debt to his widow gangabai and obtained possession of the hypotheca but instead of handing over possession to the plaintiffs father as stipulated in the sale deed he retained the possession.
only those wat hukums which were purported to have been expressly issued by the authority of the ruler whether they emanated from the prime minister the political agent sarsubha or the grant officer had the force of law.
62/2 to the extent of four acres 36 guntas was mortgaged to hanmgond balgonda patil for rs.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated april 20 1964 of the bombay high companyrt in second appeal number 1188 of 1958.
number 62/2 and 62/3 to the plaintiffs father bhimgonda.
it appears that part of the property out of r.8.
the plaintiff appealed to the district companyrt which allowed the appeal holding that the impugned alienation was legal and did number offend any of the provisions of the hukums that were in force and that the suit was within time.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 734 of 1966.
all the other wat hukums which were issued by the several officers as executive orders did number have any legal force.
it was also the plaintiffs case that bhimgonda who was a hissadar bhauband of the suit land which was a part of patilki watan inam land on the date of the sale deed dated 27 5 21 was entitled to claim possession of the property on the strength of his title deed as such the revenue companyrt erred in handing over possession of the portion of the suit property to the first defendant on 3351.
be brought into force.
d. verma r. mahalingier and ganpat rai for the respondents.
in respect of the other two acres and one gunta which was mortgaged to vironda and others he alleged that the first defendant redeemed the mortgage and handed over the possession to the plaintiffs mother as the guardian of the plaintiff who was then a minumber and that after the plaintiffs mother got into possession of the property the kolhapur government attached the property and took possession of it in 1928 on the ground that the mortgage in favour of virgonda and others was companytrary to wat hukums.
even apart from this defect the suit property was never in the possession of the deceased hanamgonda in his capacity as the mortgagee but that it has always been in his possession as the owner thereof.
the respondent had filed a suit against the appellant shivagonda subraigonda patil and his son nijappa shivagounda patil virgonda shivagounda patil bhimapa shivagounda patil and rayappa shivagonda patil with the allegation that on 27 5 1921 the first defendant shivagounda who was the karta of the joint family companysisting of himself and his four sons sold by a registered sale deed for a sum of rs.
the properties sold to the plaintiffs father were previously mortgaged and it was averred that the first defendant had undertaken to pay the mortgage debt and hand over the suit property to the plaintiffs father.
accordingly the suit was barred by limitation.
the first defendant respondent number 1 companytended in his written statement that the suit being patilki watani service inam property its transfer was declared by watahukums of the kolhapur state to be illegal and void because neither the plaintiff number his father was either the nawawala of the patilki watani service inam lands or the male members of the senior branch of the senior family.
d. karkhanis and a. g. ratnaparkhi for the appellant.
2400 the suit properties admeasuring 6 acres and 37 guntas out of r.s.
up ci/70 5 the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by reddy j. this is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the bombay high companyrt companyfirming the judgment of the assistant sessions judge kolhapur who reversed the judgment and decree of the civil judge of junior division at gadhinglaj whereby the suit of the plaintiff respondent was dismissed.
