2, some time in February 1939.
4 in the suit.
Nathgauda Annagauda Balgauda Plff.
The two rival claim ants, who are number on the scene, are the plaintiffs on one side and defendant No.
274 of 1941 which arose out of a decree dated 15th March, 1941, of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Satara in Civil Suit No.
died on 27 1 1932 .
Vithalrao was the recipient of a Sanad dated 28th November, 1892, under what was called the Gordon Settlement, the object of which was to companymute serv ices of certain watandars in that part of the companyntry and relieve them from liability to perform the services attached to their office on certain terms and companyditions which were agreed upon between the Government on the one hand and the watandars on the other.
A new entry was then made in the village register which recorded Bhimabai number as watandar, but as heir of Firangojirao and the lands were described as being companyverted into ryotvari lands after forfeiture by Govern ment and subjected to full assessment.
On 11th October, 1923, the Government of Bombay by their Reso lution No.
dated 14th March.
2 Krishnabai Adopted Deft.
to Anandrao on 4th of November, 1924, he was the nearest heir to the property in suit which was a watan property and prayed that a declaration in his favour might be made by the companyrt.
4 on the other, and the whole companytro versy in this appeal centres round the point as to who amongst them have the preferential right to succeed to the disputed estate after the death of Bhimabai.
2 in this appeal, was added as a party defendant sometime after the suit was filed and the companytention raised on his behalf was that by reason of his having been duly adopted.
Vithalrao died 1896 Ganpatrao died 1914 Nilkanthrao Anandrao Tangawa alias died 1899 died 1913 Anandibai Deft.
As said al ready, the defendant No.
The defendant No.
On 23rd September, 1921, the name of Bhimabai was entered in the village records as watandar in place of Firangojirao and in the year following the Court of Wards, Satara, assumed superintendence of Bhimabais estate.
Firangojirao died in 1919, leaving Bhimabai, his only daughter, who was a minor at that time.
4 Babasaheb on adopted by 3 2 1939.
1 Appellant No.
4 as a son to her husband.
ed her sister Gangabai on 14 2 1924 without any issue .
On 27th January, 1932, Bhima bai died unmarried and her estate companytinued under the man agement of the Court of Wards.
Ganpatrao died childless in 1914, leaving behind him his two widows Anandibai and indirabai, of whom the senior widow Anandibais defendant No.
4, who is respondent No.
Appellant No.
A 471 declared the Chikurde Deshmukh watan as lapsed to Government, presumably on the ground that there was numbermale heir in the watan family after the death of Firangojirao.
In 1896 Vithalrao died and he was succeeded by his eldest son Ganpatrao under the law of primogeniture.
3 claimed to have been adopted as a son to her husband Ganpatrao by Anandibai, the defendant No.
2 Bhimabai daughter Plff.
115 of 1950.
3 Vithalrao Deft.
The plaintiffs then took an appeal to the High Court of Bombay and this appeal was heard by a Division Bench companysisting of Macklin in and Rajadhyaksha JJ.
Ganpatrao had left a will bequeathing all his watan and numberwatan properties to Firangojirao and the latter succeeded to the estate both under the will as well as under the law of lineal promogeniture, he being the only male member of the family at that time.
4 and number the plain tiffs.
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree of the Bombay High Court Macklin and Rajadhyaksha JJ.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Firangojirao died Tanakka predeceas angabai died 15 11 1919.
On 4th of November, 1924, Krishnabai, the widow of Anandrao, adopted defendant No.
Both the two brothers of Ganpatrao, namely, Nilkanthrao and Anan drao had predeceased him.
The terms of the settlement were generally embodied in Sanads and one such Sanad was granted to Vithalrao in 1892.
It is number disputed that after this settlement Vithalrao companytinued to be watandar as defined by Bombay Act III of 1874, and that the watan in dispute was an impartible estate governed by the rule of primogeniture.
1945, in First Appeal No.
Later on, defendants 2, 3 and 4, who put forward rival claims of succession to the estate, were allowed to intervene in the suit and were added as parties defendants.
The Courts below have negatived the claims of defendants 2 and 3 and they have number companye up to press.
Nilkanthrao left behind him one son named Firangojirao and two daughters, while Anandrao died childless, leaving him surviving his widow Krishnabai, who later on adopted Vithalrao, who is defendant No.
R. Madbhavi K. R. Bergeri, with him for their appellant.
890 of 1938.
J. Umrigar for respondent No.
The appellants before us filed the suit as plaintiffs in the original companyrt, for establishment of their title to the property in dispute which is known as Chikurde Estate, on the allegation that they were, under the Hindu Law, the nearest heirs of one Bhimabai, who was admittedly the last holder of the estate.
The trial companyrt on a companysideration of the evidence came to the companyclusion that the Chikurde estate was an impartible property governed by the rules of primogeniture.
The suit was brought initially against one defendant, name ly, the Court of Wards, Satara, and admittedly the Court of Wards took possession of the property of Bhimabai, while she was alive, and is companytinuing in possession of the same even number after her death.
their claims in the appeal before us.
It was held that, it being an impartible joint estate, the rule of survivorship still applied and companysequently on the death of Ganpatrao, without leaving any son, the estate passed by survivorship to the next senior branch which was that of Firangojirao.
Krishnabai on 4 11 1924 Respdt.
The Court of Wards, which number figures as defend ant No.
The Judgment of the Court was deliv ered by MUKHERJEA J. This appeal is directed against a judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated the 14th of March, 1945, which affirmed, on appeal, the decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge, Satara, passed in Civil Suit No 890 of 1938.
December 17.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India K. G.Datar, with him for respondent No.
