SHIVAGONDA SUBRAIGONDA PATIL AND ORS. versus RUDRAGONDA BHIMAGONDA PATIL AND ANR.

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 787 · Decided: 14-10-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

787 
A 
SHIVAGONDA SUBRAIGONDA PATIL AND ORS. 
v. 
RUDRAGONDA BHIMAGONDA PATIL AND ANR. 
October 14, 1969 
B 
[S. M. SrKRI, G. K. MITTER AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.j 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Wat Hukums-Kolhapur State-Patel-ki-Watan inam-lf could be 
alie1U1ted contrary to Specific Wat Hukums-Bornbay Hereditary Offices 
Act (Ill of 1814)-Applicability-Limitation Act, art. 142. 
The respondent filed a suit against the appellant alleging that the latter 
had sold the suit property to the respondent's father undertaking to re. 
deem the mortgages and hand over possession of the property. It was 
averred that the appellant, after redeeming the mortgages wrongfully re-
tained possession of the properties contrary to the stipulation and the sale 
effected in favour o'f the ·respondent's father. 
The 
appellant contested 
the suit on the ground that the sale in favour of the respondent's father 
was void under the then prevailing law in Kolhapur 
State and that the 
suit \Vas barred by limitation. The District Court decr(ed the suit and 
the High Court confirmed. 
On the 
questions (i) whether according to 
the law in force as could be ascertained from the relevant Wat Hukums 
and the provisions of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act (III of 1874) 
in so far as it was applicable to the State Of Kolhapur, the alienation of 
Pcte[.ki-Watan Inam land was void and (ii) whether the suit was barred 
by Jimitation, 
HELD : (i) On the construction of the various Wat Hukums the 
alil'.'nation in favour of the respondent's father was invalid. The Bombay 
Hereditary Offices Act did not apply to the Kolhapur State so as to over-
ride the specific directions of the Wat Hukums which had legal and bind-
ing force in the State. In this case there was a specific prohibition from 
alienating Patel-ki-Watan and other similar inams. 
[794 F, G] 
Rangappa Venappa Ako/e v. Laxman Malyappa, 62 Born. L.R. 639, 
referred to. 
(ii) The suit was not barred by limitation. The suit was against a per-
son who was not entitled to possession. The appellant did not dispossess 
the respondent and as such Art. 142 Ci! the Limitation Act was not appli-
cable. 
[795 B-C] 
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal No. 734 of 
G 
1966. 
H 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
April 20, 1964 of the Bombay High Court in Second Appeal 
No. 1188 of 1958. 
N. D; Karkhanis and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant. 
D. D. Verma, R. Mahalingier and Ganpat Rai, for the res-
pondents. 
LSS11p CI/70-5 
788 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1970] 2 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Recldy, J. 
This is an appeal by special ]eave against the 
judgment of the Bombay High Court confirming the judgment of 
the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kolhapur who reversed the judg-
ment and decree of the civil judge of Junior Division at Gadhin-
glaj whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was dismissed. 
The respondent had filed a suit against the appellant Shivagonda 
Subraigonda Patil and his son Nijappa Shivagounda Patil, 
Virgonda Shivagounda Patil, Bhimapa Shivagounda Patil and 
Rayappa Shivagonda Patil with the allegation that on 27-5-1921 
the first defendant, Shivagounda who was the karta of the joint 
family consistin~ of himself and his four sons, sold by a registered 
sale deed for a sum of Rs. 2,400 the suit properties admeasuring 
6 acres and 37 guntas out of RS. No. 62/2 and 62/3 to the 
plaintiff's father Bhimgonda. 
The properties sold to the plain-
tiff's father were previously mortgaged and it was averred that 
the first defendant had undertaken to pay the mortgage debt and 
hand over the suit property to the plaintiff's father. It appears 
that part of the property out of R.S. 62/2 to the extent of four 
acres, 36 guntas was mortgaged to Hanmgond Balgonda Patil for 
Rs. 1,000 and_ two acres and one gunta out of S. No. 62/3 was 
mortgaged to Virgonda and four other persons. It was the case 
of the plaintiff that after the death of Hanmgond Ba1gonda the 
first defendant repaid the debt to his wiciow Gangabai and 
obtained possessior. of the hypotheca but instead of handing over 
possession to the plaintiff's father as stipulated in the sale deed 
he retained the possession 
In respect of the other tw0 acres and 
one gunt;i which was mortgaged· to Virgonda and others he 
alleged that the first defendant redeemed the mortgage and handed 
over the possession to the plaintiff's mother as the guardian of the 
plaintiff who was then a minor and that after the 

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