SHRIMANT DATTAJIRAO BAHIROJIRAO GHORPADE versus SHRIMANT VIJAYASINHRAO AND ANOTHER.

Citation: [1960] 3 S.C.R. 789 · Decided: 29-04-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

--
.... 
• I 
3 S.0.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
789 
Order of Court. 
Ig6o 
In view of the majority judgment of the Court, the Arunachalam Pillai 
appeal is allowed with costs in this Court, and the SouthernvRoadways 
case rem.anded to the High Court for a re-hearing by 
(Private) L1a. 
a single Judge. Costs in the High Court will . abide 
Subba Rao J. 
the result. 
Appeal allowed. 
SHRIMANT DATTAJIRAO 
BAHIROJIRAO GHORPADE 
v. 
SHRIMANT VIJAYASINHRAO AND ANOTHER. 
/ 
. (S. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR and M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.) 
Saranjam Estate-Maintenance grant to junior member-Power 
of Government to resume and re-grant-Custom of lineal primogeniture, 
• extent and effect of-Suit challenging Government order of resumption 
and re-grant-If barred-Saranjam Rules-Bombay Revenue Juris-
diction Act, z876 (Bom. X of I876), s. 4. 
Upon the death of the holder in 1932, the Government of 
Bombay by order dated June 7, 1932, resumed the Saranjam 
estate of Gajendragad and re-granted the same to his eldest son. 
By the same order the assignment of some lands out of the estate 
in favour of B, a younger member of the family, by way of main-
tenance was also continued. On May 14, 1940, B died leaving 
his widow, A, and his undivided brother, D. A asked the Govern-
ment for permission to adopt a son but without the permission 
being granted adopted Von July IO, l94I. By an order dated 
December 17, 1941, the Government continued the maintenance 
grant (Saranjam potgi) to D. Thereupon V filed a suit against 
., the Government and D for recovery of the lands on the grounds 
(i) that the order of the Government dated December 17, 1941, 
was ultra vires, null and void, and (ii) that by the custom of 
lineal primogeniture which prevailed in the family the lands, 
upon the death of B and upon the adoption of V by A, devolved 
upon V in preference to D. The suit was contested, inter alia, on 
. the grounds : (i) that under the relevant Saranjam Rules the 
interest of B came to an end on his death and was not such as 
could devolve upon V despite the order dated December 17, 1941, 
(ii) that the alleged family custom did not apply to maintenance 
grants and (iii) that the suit was barred under s. 4 of the Bombay 
Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876 : 
Held, that the plaintiff was not entitled to the lands either 
under the Saranjam Rules or under the custom; further that 
the suit was barred by s. 4 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction 
A.ct, 1876, 
IQ~ 
i960 
April 29. 
7!JO 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1960] 
The maintenance grant (potgi holding) was part of the 
S . --
.. 
Saranjarn and was governed by the incidents of Saranjarn tenure 
hriman~ D~_tta1irao and by the relevant Saran jam Rules. 
Saran jam grants were 
BGk;;;;;;;o 
granted or 'vithheld at the will and pleasure of the sovereign 
v. 
power and the grant was always subject to interruption and 
Shrimant Vijaya- revocation by resumption, temporary or absolute. 
On the death 
sinhrao 
of B it was open to the Government to resume the grant and 
to grant it to D and this is what it did by the order dated 
December 17, 194r. The taking in adoption of the plaintiff by 
the widow of the deceased could not affect the operation of the 
order passed by the Government. 
Daulatrao Malojirao v. Province of Bombay (1946) 49 Born. 
L.R. 270, referred to. 
Even under the custom of lineal primogeniture pleaded by 
the plaintiff, D was entitled to get the properties after the death 
of B. It was not pleaded that the properties once so vested were 
divested by subsequent adoption by the widow. Further it was 
neither pleaded nor proved that the custom took away the right 
of the Government to resume the maintenance grant and to make 
a fresh grant thereof. 
Sub-clause 4 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876, . 
barred the jurisdiction of civil courts·in respect of'' claims against 
the Government relating to lands granted or held as Saranjam". 
The plaintiff asked for a finding that the order of December 17, 
r94r, was null and void and did not affect the properties in suit. 
Unless the order was out of his way, the plaintiff was not entitled 
to claim recovery of possession. 
The claim v.1as one which fell 
.within the mischief of s. 4 and the suit was barred. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal 
No. 37 of 1960. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated 
November 12, 1952, of the Bombay High Court in 
First Appeal No. 492 of 1949, arising out of the judg-
ment and decree dated the 20th April, 19
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.