DANDU KALLAPPA PATIL & ORS. versus BALAGONDA SULTANGOUDA PATIL

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 342 · Decided: 11-09-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

342 
DANDU KALLAPPA PATIL & ORS. 
v. 
BALAGONDA SULTANGOUDA PATIL 
September 11, 1969 
[C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND l. D. DUA, JJ.] 
Nas111amsha, meaning of. 
The suit lands were patilkiwatan lands in the erstwhile State of Kolha-
pur. 
Under the wat hukum No. 26 of Fasli 1323, the servioe was to be 
performed by persons in the eldest branch, but the properties need not 
necessarily be with the person doing the service. Thus, though the res-
pondent \Vas registered as the Nawa wala and was doing service, the pro· 
perties \Vere in possession of another branch. 
The 
widow of the last 
holder of the properties, in that branch, died in 1943 leaving a daughter. 
The respondent, thereupon, filed a suit claiming the properties on the 
ground that, under the 
wat hukum, 
the other branch 
had Cecome 
Nashtanzsha., that is, extinct, because there was no direct male descendant, 
and that he was entitled to get possession of the properties from the 
appellants, who were in possession. The suit was decreed by the Subordi-
nate courts and the High Court. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD : In Kolhapur State 
'uccession to watan 
properties 
was 
governed by the wat hukwn and not by ordinary HinJu law. 
In Dada 
Babaii Patil v. Ka/gonda Bt.bgonda Patil, (19'45) 
Kol. L.R. 
541, 
a 
decision of the Supreme Court of Kolbapur, followed in S.A. No. 210 of 
1947 by the High Court of Kolhapur, it was held that a branch became 
Nashtamslia when the deceased person left behind him no sons. 
But, 
according to Shivgouda v. Champabai Bharatar Siagonda App. No. 297 /57 
(dt. 7-12-1962) of the Bombay High Court, a branch cannot be said 
to be Nashtamsha if the last holder leaves a daughter. 
But, whatever 
may be the correct interpretation, the appellants could not succeed, be~ 
cause, if the view of the Kolhapur courts is accepted, the respondent, 
as Nawa wala, was entitled to get possession, and if the Bombay view 
i~ 
according to Shivgonda v. Champabai Bharatar Siagonda App. No. 297 /57 
who would be entitled to inherit the watan properties. [348 B-E: 349 B. 
B-GJ 
Sambaji Ramchandra Kulkarni v. Gopal G<>vind 
Dattawad, 
(1960) 
Mys. l.J. 441, referred to. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 
G 
1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
September 11, 1961 of the Mysore High Court in Second Appeal 
No. tB) 43 o.f 1956. 
. 
R. B. Datar and S. N. Prasad, for the appellants. 
R. Gopa/akrishnan and D. P. Mohanty, for the respondent. 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
D. K. PATIL v. B. s. PATIL (Vaidia/ingam, 1.) 
343 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Vaidialingam, J. This appeal, by special leave, by defendants 
1 to 4, is directed against the judgment and decree, dated Septem-
ber 11, 1961 of the Mysore High Court, in S.A. (B) No. 43 of 
1956, confirming the decrees of the two Subordinate Courts grant-
ing a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. 
The respondent instituted suit No. 1 of 1945, before the 
Second Class Sub-Judge at Chinchali, for recovery of possession 
of the suit lands. 
According to the plaintiff, the lands are Patilki-
watan Inam lands and he has been registered as 'N awa Wala' by 
order No. 68 dated March 30, 1927 of the Revenue Authorities 
of the thein Kolhapur State. 
The suit properties had gone in 
partition to one Maya Gouda, a member of the Patil family. Maya 
Gouda died about 35 or 40 years ago and his widow Jakkawwa 
was in possession of the lands till the date of her death on August 
16, 1943. 
The plaintiff's further case was that though Maya 
Gouda and Jakkawwa had a daughter Bayabai, the 7th defendant 
in the suit, the ratter could not inherit the inam properties under 
the Jaw obtahning in Kolhapur State. Therefore the line of Maya 
Gouda has become extinct and the plaintiff, as Nawa Wala is 
entitled to get possession of the properties as per the Wat Hukum 
No. 26 of Fasli 1323. 
Defendants 1 to 4, the appellants herein, contested the claim 
of the plaintiff on various grounds. 
They pleaded that the plain-
tiff was not the senior-most member of the s~or branch of the 
family to which Maya Gouda belonged and. that they were the 
nearest reversioners, under Hindu Law, 
to the properties of 
Maya Gouda. 
They fUrther pleaded that there was no extinction 
of the line of Maya Gouda as he had left a daughter, the 7th 
defendant, behind him. 
They also claimed title by adverse pos-
session. 
The trial Court, by its judgment and d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.