The decisions submitted therein have the approval of the Government of India in the Ministry of State.
A companyy of the Inventory as finally, accepted, is attached for your information.
247 admeasuring 100 acres, 38 gunthas and also granted a decree for delivering the possession of the land and also held that the plaintiff was entiled to accounts for this land.
15.8.1950.
19,200 per annum as previously companymunicated to you.
The alternative case was put up by the plaintiff into meet the allegation of the State Government that the suit property lot A had vested in the State by virtue of Section 6 of the Talukdari Abolition Act.
Bombay Castle, dated 11th April 50 My dear Thakor Shaheb, I am to say that the Inventory of private property securities and cash balances furnished by you in accordance with Articles 3 of the instrument of merger executed by you has been companysidered.
It may be mentioned that the State of Gujarat allotted the suit lands to Mahisagar Bhatha Co operative Agricultural Co operative Society Limited, Gambhira hereinafter referred to as the Society during the pendency of this litigation and as such the Society was also impleaded as defendant in the suit.
787 of 1971 was filed by the State of Gujarat, first appeal No.799 of 1971 by the Society and first appeal No.834 of 1971 by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he was the owner of suit land A Kothiakhad Bhatha bearing survey No.
The appeal No.
The suit as regards Mahmadpura Bhatha land B was dismissed.
We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and have thoroughly perused the record.
The plaintiff had claimed the suit properties as his personal properties as a Talukdar and in the alternative it was alleged that the suit lands were Bhatha lands beyond the purview of the Bombay Talukdar Tenure Abolition Act, 1949 hereinafter referred to as Talukdari Abolition Act which came in to operation w.e.f.
The Trial Court by Judgment dated 30.3.1971 declared that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit land survey No.
247, the Judgment and decree passed by the Learned Trial Judge was companyfirmed.
834 of 1971 filed by the plaintiff against the dismissal of his claim for Mahmadpura Bhatha land, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
247 admeasuring 100 acres and 38 gunthas and of landed property plot B referred to as Mahmedpura land and for recovery of possession and for rendition of accounts of income from 1.11.1952 till the date of handing over possession.
An inventory of such private properties which formed part of such merger agreement clearly mentioned five talukdari villages in Borsad Taluka of Kaira district.
Subject to the above variation, the decree passed by the trial companyrt for declaring ownership and possession in respect of land survey No.
As regards the five Talukdari villages claimed by you as your private property, I am to say that Government has agreed to companycede your claim to these villages but as the Revenues of these villages have been included in the average annual Revenues of Umeta State for purposes of calculation of your privy purse, the same i.e. the Revenues of these villages have number been excluded from the average Revenues of the State and your privy purse has been finally fixed at Rs.
The High Court dismissed the first appeals Nos.
Jagdevsinghji since dead and number represented through his heirs and legal representatives hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff was the ruler of Umeta State and he was also a registered Talukdar and owner of five villages, including village Kothiakhad in the State of Gujarat.
I am to request you to acknowledge the receipt of this letter and of companyy of the inventory enclosed herewith.
Aggrieved against the Judgment and decree of the Trial Court, first appeal No.
The High Court disposed of all the three appeals by a companymon Judgment dated 6.4.1978.
This Village Kothiakhad is situated on the bank of river Mahi.
14,450 per annum instead of at Rs.
Exhibit 129 letter dated 31st January, 1949 written by the Collector and Chief Administrator Kaira to the plaintiff clearly mentions that the matter regarding the five talukdari villages in Borsad Taluka had been referred to Government for orders.
The plaintiffs case in this regard was that the princely State of Umeta had merged in the Union of India and at that time by a merger agreement dated 24.5.1948 five villages were allowed as private properties of the plaintiff and the suit lands situated in one of such village Kothiakhad remained unaffected by the provisions of the Talukdari Abolition Act.
The State of Gujarat and the Society have number companye in appeal to this Court but numberappeal has been filed by the plaintiff, as such we are only companycerned with the Kothiakhad Bhatha land of survey No.
M. Kasliwal, J. Both these appeals by grant of Special leave are directed against the companymon Judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dated 6.4.1978.
Thakor Sh.
