The defendants thereafter moved the Government for reconsideration of that order.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated February 17, 1955, of the Bombay High Court in Second Appeal No.
The Government eventually modified its previous order by directing that the defendants 2 to 4, who were in possession of the lands, should companytinue to retain it but that they should pay such amount of rent as may be fixed by Government from time to time.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by MUDHOLKAR, J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Bombay affirming the decree of the District judge, Thana, setting aside the decree in favour of the Plaintiff appellant.
K. Chakravarti for B. C. Misra, for the appellant.
This order was passed on May 2, 1947, and by virtue of that order the rent payable by defendants 2 to 4 was raised from Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In the year 1914 the descendents of Krishnarao, who were till then joint, effected a partition of the family property which companysisted of inam and Watan lands in various villages including the villages of Solsumbha, Maroli and Vavji.
The relevant facts which are numberlonger in dispute are these Tile plaintiffs family are grantees of the Patilki Watan of some villages in Umbergaon taluka of the Thana District of Maharashtra, including the villages of Solsumblha, Maroli and Vavji.
S. Bindra, S. B. Jathar and P.D. Menon for R.H.Dhebar, for respondent No.
December 13.
Sadashiv died in 1901 and was succeeded by Purshottam, who was Officiator till the year 1921 when, because of the disqualification incurred by him, a deputy was appointed in his place.
After the death of Pursliottam in 1940 his son the plaintiff appellant Laxman became the Officiator.
The plaintiff represents the seniormost branch of the family while the defendants 2 to 4 represent other branches.
206 of 1960.
V. Joshi and Ganpat Rai, for respondents Nos.
Defendants 2 to 4 also belong to the family of the plaintiff.
After his death he was succeeded by his eldest son Vasudev, upon whose death in 1893 his eldest son Sadashiv was the Officiator.
It is companymon ground that the Officiator had been selected from the branch of the plaintiff from the year 1870 in which year the propositus Krishna Rao Pimputkar died.
1533 of 1952.
