182 of 1935, in the High Court of Bombay.
The respondent challenged the said order before the Bombay High Court and his challenge was upheld by the said High Court.
Petition for cancellation of the decree dated November 25, 1949, granted to the Respondent by the Order in Council in Privy Council Appeal No.
Amongst the properties in which the respondent had thus become entitled to claim a share are the 11 lands in question.
Accordingly an Order in Council was drawn up on November 25, 1949 under this order the respondent was entitled to recover by partition a half share in the properties in suit.
His appeal, however, failed and the certificate issued by the Assistant Commissioner has been companyfirmed.
Thereupon the said companyrt acted upon the certificate and cancelled the execution process which had been issued against the Patilki assigned property of Kirtgeri.
In support of these pleas the petitioner relied upon the provisions of the Act companytained in ss.
Thereafter the petitioner applied for a reissue of a certificate under s. 10 and prayed that the certificate 1 1881 V BOM.
41 of 1950, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Dharwar.
He was also entitled to mesne profits, past and future, till the recovery of possession or three years and an enquiry was directed in that behalf.
R. Bengeri and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respondent.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General for India and B. R. L. Iyengar, for the petitioner.
The respondent then challenged the High Court decree and went up to the Privy Council in Appeal No.
7, 10, 11, 13, 24, 25 and 36.
It is with this certificate that the petitioner has moved this Court for the cancellation of the decree in question in regard to the 11 properties at Kirtgeri.
530 of 1959.
It appears that after this certificate was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Gadag Division, the respondent filed an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwar.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Misc.
11 of 1948.
The petitioner has obtained a certificate prescribed under s. 10, and he companytends that as a result of the said certificate this Court should cancel the decree as claimed by him in the petition.
They form part of a Watan and, according to the revenue records, they have been assigned as remuneration to the officiator for the time being under s. 23 of the Act.
Pending the execution proceedings the petitioner applied for the grant of the prescribed certificate under s. 10 of the Act, and a certificate was accordingly issued by the Collector addressed to the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharwar.
18 of 1934 and in the said suit he had claimed partition and possession of the properties as an adopted son of Shiddangouda.
It was also urged on his behalf that in the original suit the respondent had number claimed any declaration that he was entitled to the office of Patil and that without such a claim the 11 lands in question companyld number be claimed by the respondent.
The trial companyrt passed a decree in favour of the respondent.
Petition NO.
These properties were and are in the possession of the petitioner.
The petitioner then companytended that the 11 lands in question were governed by the provisions of the Act, they were assigned as remuneration to the office of the Patil, and as such they companyld number be partitioned.
XI of 1948.
March 9.
His appeal was allowed and the decree passed by the trial companyrt was reversed.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. This petition has been made under s. 10 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 hereinafter called the Act , for cancellation of the decree granted to the respondent by the Order in Council dated November 25, 1949, in so far as the said decree purports to operate on or include any right to the office of the Patilki and 11 Watan lands attached thereto.
These lands are situated at Kirtgeri in the Taluk of Gadag.
It appears that the respondent had filed a suit against the petitioner in the Court of the First Class Sub Judge at Dharwar Civil Suit No.
His appeal was allowed, and the Privy Council held that the decree passed by the trial companyrt should be restored.
In due companyrse the respondent filed an execution application Darkhast No.
The petitioner then preferred an appeal, No.
