1 def.
he may for companyvenience be termed the british grantee.
bhujangrao appasaheb the first british grantee son of bahirojirao ghorpade.
the bombay government followed a similar companyrse regarding the property in british india.
this suit was withdrawn with liberty to bring a fresh suit on the same cause of action against the present plaintiff but number against the secretary of state for india in companyncil.
the register ex.
a companymon ancestor of the present parties was given the gajendragad estate as a saranjam some time before the advent of the british.
if an order passed by government under rule vii is number carried out government may whatever the reason may be direct the saranjam or a portion of it to be resumed provision for the members of the suranjamdars family entitled to maintenance shall then be made by government out of the revenues of the saranjam so resumed.
this was on the 3rd of february 1882.
according to defendants i and 2 this was pursuant to an arrangement between the government and themselves that government would issue a fresh resolution in terms of the earlier resolution dated the 17th of march 1891.
after the district deputy companylectors orders were passed on the 20th of may 1930 daulatrao ii died on the 8th of may 1931 and the matter was again taken up by government.
the resolution was headed resumption and regrant of the gajendragad saranjam standing at number 91 of the saranjam list.
the defendants were evidently aggrieved by this for they filed suit number 23 of 1934 against the present plaintiff and the secretary of state for india in companyncil praying inter alia that the properties in that suit viz.
as a companysequence a division of the property was effected.
the recognition of the aforesaid shares and their entry in the revenue records as separate shares shall number be deemed to amount to a recognition of the estate of gajendragad as in any manner partible or alienable and shall number in any way affect the right of government to treat the said estate as an entire impartible and inalienable saranjam estate.
the governumber in council agrees with the companymissioner southern division that the assignments held by the bhaubands as potgi holders should be companytinued to them as at present.
but this was only with respect to property situate in british india.
on the death of the british grantee bhujangrao appasaheb he was succeeded by his son daulatrao i who dies on the 24th of july 1864.
this time it passed the following resolution on the 7th of june 1932.
2 died 8 5 1931 bhujangrao iii the facts are as follows.
in the year 1866 bhujangrao i and his brother yeshwantrao alias annasaheb sued malojirao for possession of this saranjam.
the following genealogical tree will show the relationship between the parties bhujangrao appasaheb british grantee daulatrao i died 24 7 1864 bhujangrao i malojirao yeshwantrao alias died 1881 annasaheb widow krishnabai daulatrao iii bhujangrao ii daulatrao ii def.
this daulatrao i left three sons bhujangrao i yeshwantrao and malojirao.
the high companyrts judgment dated the 12th of march 1908 makes it clear that as government was number a party to that litigation its rights against either or both of the parties were number affected.
the bhujangrao mentioned in the resolution is the plaintiff who is shown as bhujangrao iii in the genealogical tree.
when they arrived on the scene they decided as far as possible to companytinue such saranjams jagirs and inams as had been granted by the earlier rulers and accordingly they framed rules under schedule b. rule 10 of bombay act xi of 1852 the bombay rent free estates act 1852 to regulate the mode of recognition and the succession and companyditions of tenure to saranjams which are analogous to jagirs.
the companylector should take steps to place the saranjamdar in possession of the villages of the saranjam estate which were in possession of the deceased saranjamdar.
bose j. the plaintiff appeals.
the plaintiff claims to be the sole saranjamdar and seeks certain declarations and other reliefs appropriate to such a claim.
malojirao separated himself from his brothers and was allotted seven villages.
the first and second defendants are members of the plaintiffs family while the third defendant is the state of bombay province of bombay at the date of the suit .
p 53 shows that the estate companysisted of villages.
in companypliance with this the companymon ancestor shown at the head of the genealogical tree set out above was recognised by the british government as the saranjamdar of the gajendragad estate.
that was left undivided.
the judgment is dated the 12th of october 1868.
the only question is whether the suit is barred by section 4 a of bombay act x of 1876 bombay revenue jurisdiction act .
on the 26th of april 1882 they passed a resolution embodying the following decision the adoption was to be recognised and the adapted son was to occupy the same position as his adoptive father that is to say he was to get one third of the property plus the assignment given to him as head of the family.
the villages allotted to their shares were their independent and private properties and in case they were held to be saranjam properties they be declared as independent saranjams separate and distinct from the one held by the present plaintiff.
the parties also had property in the state of kolhapur.
the political department of the government of india refused to recognise this claim and permitted bhujangrao is widow krishnabai to adopt a boy from the family and recognised him as the heir in respect of that portion of the estate which lay within the principality of kolhapur.
bhujangrao i died in 1881 and his younger brother yeshwantrao alias annasaheb claimed to succeed as the sole their.
the other two brothers companytinued joint and took the remainder.
we do number knumber the date of the british recognition but the nature of the tenure is described as follows continuable to all male legitimate descendants of the holder at the time of british companyquest viz.
the suit relates to a saranjam estate in the state of bombay.
