BACHHARAM DATTA PATIL AND ANOTHER versus VISHWANATH PUNDALIK PATIL AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1956] 1 S.C.R. 675 · Decided: 20-09-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B. JAGANNADHADAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
675 
BACHHARAM DATTA PATIL AND ANOTHER 
v. 
VISHW ANATH PUNDALIK PATIL AND 
OTHERS. 
[JAGANNADHADAS, VENKATARAMA AYYAR, 
B. P. SINHA and S. K. DAS JJ.] 
Watan lands-Resumption by Government-Dispensing with the 
services and levying of full assessment-Lands subsequently described 
as J apti Sanadi I nam lands-Whether retain character of W atan 
lands. 
Certain lands which were originally Watan lands were resumed 
by the Government after dispensing with the services that were 
being rendered and full assessment was levied thereon. 
The lands 
were subsequently described as "Japti Sanadi Inam" lands. 
Held, that the lands had lost their character as Watan lands 
and had become ryotwari lands of the holder. 
Ramijyabi Mi~ktum Saheb v. t;tudusaheb, (54 Bom, L.B. 405),. 
a.pproved. 
The very description of the lands as Japti Sana.di Inam lands 
means that the lands were once the subject matter of an Inam grant 
by virtue of a Sanad and have been i·esumed or confiscated by the 
Government and have been left in the hands of the holder as ryot-
wari holding. 
The Government may commute the services to be rendered and 
it will then depend on the terms of the agreement between the bolder 
of the We.tan lands and the Government entered into at the time of 
the commutation whether the lands are to retain their character as 
We.tan lands or not. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal 
No. 249 of 1953. 
On appeal from the judgment and decree dated 
the 1st day of September, 1949, of the Bombay High 
Court in Appeal No. 23 of 1947 from original decree 
arising out of the decree dated the 28th September 
1946 of the Civil Judge, Session Division at Belgawn 
in Suit No. 360 of 1945. 
K. R. Bengeri, J.B. Dadachanji and Sri Narain 
Andley for A. C. Dave for the appellants. 
H.B. Datar and Naunit Lal for respondent No.1. 
66 
1956 
September 20 
1956 
Bachharam Datta 
Patil and another 
v. 
Vishwanath 
P11ndalik Patil 
and others 
676 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1956) 
1956. September 20. 
The Judgment of the 
Court was delivered by 
SINHA J.-This is an appeal by leave of the High 
Court of Judicature at Bombay from the decision of 
a Division Bench of that Court reversing that of the 
trial court in respect of items 3, 4 and 6 in the list of 
the properties attached to the plaint as the subject-
matter of the dispute. 
In respect of the other items 
of property in dispute the courts below have given 
concurrent decisions and that part of their judgments 
is no more in controversy at this stage. 
The three 
items aforesaid of the property along with the others 
in dispute had been decreed in favour of the original 
plaintiffs 2 and 3 as Watan property. But on appeal 
by the third defendant, the High Court·reversed the 
decisiou of the trial court only in respect of those 
three items and confirmed the decision of the trial 
court in respect of the rest of the plaint properties. 
The proposi~us was one Shreemant who died on the 
23rd November, 1941 lea.ving him surviving his wife 
Radhabai. Radhabai died on the 9th May 1945 and 
on her death the dispute arose between the rever-
sioners on the one hand including the plaintiffs 2 and 
3, appellants in this Court, and the defendants on 
the other who claimed by virtue of alleged adoptions 
said to have been made by Radhabai aforesaid. The 
first plaintiff is out of the picture now on the con-
current finding by the courts below that he had no 
right to the estate left by the propositus by virtue of 
the adoption found in his favour, inasmuch as be-
fore he was adopted the estate had already vested in 
the actual reversioners, plaintiffs 2 and 3, the agnatic 
relations of Shreemant. 
The estate of Shreemant, 
so far as it related to Watan lands, vested in plain-
tiffs 2 and 3 aforesaid under the provisions of Bombay 
Act V of 1886. If either defendant 2 or defendant 3 
had proved his alleged adoption by Radhabai afore-
said, he would have been entitled to the estate as the 
adopted son of the propositus, thus excluding the 
agnatic relations, namely, plaintiffs 2 and 3. 
But 
both the c.ourts below have concurrently found that 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
677 
neither of the two defendants 2 and 3 had succeeded 
in proving the adoption respectively pleaded by them. 
The trial court had substantially decreed the suit in 
respect of all the items of property in dispute includ-
ing the three items which, as indicated above, are the 
only properties now in con

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.