1437 with interest.
It was declared that the suit property was impartible.
166 of 1910 was filed in the companyrt of the District Judge, Dharwar, by the predecessors in interest of the present appellants in which one of the reliefs claimed was for partition of the one half share of the plaintiffs in the immovable and movable properties described in schedule A annexed to the petition.
A similar suit was filed by the other appellant Gangabai for recovery of Rs.
There were provisions with regard to regrant of the property to the holder of the Watan.
Suit No.
By virtue of the companying into operation of the Act the properties in dispute stood resumed to the Government.
The scheme of the Act broadly was to abolish the incidents of Watan and make Watan property liable to payment of land revenue.
1530 12 0 together with interest on account of the amount paid by way of Government dues for the years 1951 52, 1952 53 and 1953 54 by reason of the terms companytained in the companypromise decree.
In other words the eldest branch represented by the present respondents was to hold the property in question but the junior branch represented by the present appellants was to get possession of certain lands for maintenance.
The family owned Watan as well as number Watan lands apart from moveable property.
They were allotted certain lands by way of maintenance but the liability of payment of the Government dues like Judi assessment, local funds etc.
The eldest branch of the family represented number by the respondents claimed rights on the basis of primogeniture, the junior members being entitled only to maintenance.
In March 1955 the appellant M.B. Manle Desai filed a suit against Sardar Bullappa who represented the senior branch of the family for recovery of Rs.
1 in that suit was the only owner of the said property in accordance with the custom of the family.
Legislation was enacted abolishing various types of inams.
About the year 1910 certain disputes arose among the junior and the senior branches of the family regarding the partition and other arrangements relating to the property.
One of such enactments was the Bombay Pargana and Kulkarni Watan Abolition Act 1950, hereinafter called the Act which came into force on May 1, 1951.
It appears that prior to 1950 the State of Bombay decided to bring all the Watan property on the same line as Ryotwari property and subject it to payment of land revenue.
It was further declared that as the suit property was impartible defendant No.
was to be that of the eldest branch.
The position taken up by the defendant was that although under the terms of the companypromise decree he was liable to pay the Government Judi and local funds which he companytinued to do upto the year 1950 51 but after the Act came into force his liability came to an end and it was the plaintiff alone in each suit who was bound to pay the full assessment relating to the lands.
The items of Watan included the offices of Kulkarni and Patil and other rights in respect of some village in the district of Dharwar.
The plaintiffs and defendants 2, 3 and 4 number represented by the appellants were declared as having numberright of ownership but they had a right to maintenance.
The lands also became subject to payment of government dues but those dues were number the same as were payable before the Act came into force.
The appellants as holders took steps for regrant in accordance with the provisions of the Act and after paying the necessary occupancy price got the property regranted but those proceedings were number companypleted before July 27, 1956.
The Family had different types of Watans and was governed by the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act 1864, popularly known as the Watan Act.
According to the case of the plaintiffs in both the suits it was the defendant who was liable for payment of the Government dues although the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs were put in possession of the suit properties in lieu of maintenance payable to them.
In that suit a companypromise was effected between the parties on the basis of which a decree was passed on January 11, 1913.
However the eldest branch being the owner was liable for the payment of the Government dues.
The trial companyrt decreed both the suits and those decrees were companyfirmed by the first appellate companyrt.
Bullappa died during the pendency of the litigation and is number represented by the present respondents.
N. Grover, J. These appeals have been brought by special leave from a judgment of the Mysore High Court.
The parties to the proceedings out of which the appeals have arisen belong to Handiagnur Desai Family which was a Watandar Family.
