SHRIMANT SARDAR BHUJANGARAO DAULATRAO GHORPADE versus SHRIMANT MALOJIRAO DAULATRAO GHORPADE AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1952] 1 S.C.R. 402 · Decided: 30-01-1952 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1952 
Naranjan Singh 
Nathawan 
v. 
The State of 
Punjab. 
Patanjali 
Sastri C. /. 
1952 
Jan. 30. 
402 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1952] 
not made 
bona fide on being satisfied 
that the peti-
tioner's 
detention was 
still 
necessary 
but 
it 
was 
"obviously to defeat the 
present petition". 
The ques-
tion of bad faith, if raised would certainly have to be 
decided with reference 
to the 
circumstances of each 
case, but 
the 
observations in 
one 
case 
cannot 
be 
regarded as a precedent in dealing with other cases. 
We accordingly remit the case for further hearing. 
This order will govern the other petitions 
where the 
same question was raised. 
Petitions remitted. 
Agent for the respondent: P. A. Mehta. 
SHRIMANT SARDAR 
BHUJANGARAO 
DAULATRAO GHORPADE 
v. 
SHRIMANT 
MALOJIRAO 
DA ULA TRAO 
GHORPADE AND OTHERS. 
[PATANJALI SAsTRI C. J., 
DAs and VIVIAN 
BosE JJ.] 
Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act (X of 1876), s. 4(a)-Saran-
jam-Dispute between branches 
of grantee's •family-Government 
Resolution regulating succession-Suit to declare Resolution ultra 
vires, for declaration of sole right as saranjamdar, and for injunc· 
tion against 
other branches-Governtnent impleaded 
as party-
Maintainability of suit. 
The position of the Gajendrcigad estate which had been recog· 
nised by the 
British 
Government as a saranjam and 
which had 
been declared by the Bombay 
High Court in 1868 to be partible, 
was re-examined in 1891 and 
Government passed a Resolution in 
1891 that "the 
whole of the 
Gajendragad estate was 
a saranjam 
continuable as hereditary in the fullest sense of the word. 
It ls 
continuable to all made legitimate descendants 
of the holder at 
the time of the British 
conquest." 
In 1932 by another Resolu-
tion Government formally resumed the grant and re-granted it 
to the plaintiff who belonged to the first branch of the family of 
the original grantee with a direction that it should be entered in 
his sole name in 
the accounts of the Collector. The other two 
branches felt aggrieved and in 1936 Government passed another 
Resolution which confirmed the Resolution of 1891 and modified 
the 
Resolution of 19321, by declaring that 
the portions 
of the 
•• 
-
-
~ . 
-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
403 
estate held by the branches shall be entered as de facto shares 
and that each share shall be continuable hereditarily as if it 
were a separate saranjam estate. 
The plaintiff instituted a suit 
impleading 
the representatives of the 
other two 
branches as 
defendants 
1 and 2, and the 
Province of 
Bombay as the 3rd 
defendant, alleging that the 
Resolution of 1936 was tdtra vires 
and praying (A) for a declaration (i) that the defendants 1 and 2 
had no right to go behind the Resolution of 1932 under which 
the plaintiff was recognised as the. sole saranjamdar and that the 
assignments held by defendants 
were held 
by them as mere 
potgi holders, 
(ii) that the plaintiff had the sole right to all 
privileges appertaining to the post of saranjamdar, and (iii) that 
the 
Government had no right to change the Resolution of 1932, 
and (B) for restraining the defendants 
I and 
2 from doing any-
acts in contravention of the aforesaid right of the plaintiff. 
Held, (i) that the suit was a suit "against the Crown" and 
also a suit "relating to lands held as 
saranjam" 
within 
the 
meaning of sec. 4 of the 
Bombay 
Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876, 
and the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit; 
(ii) that the plaintiff could not be 
given even 
the reliefs 
claimed against 
defendants 1 and 2 alone, as the rights claimed 
against 
these 
defendants could not be divorced 
from 
the claim 
' against the Government and considered separately; 
(iii) in any event if the claim against the Government was 
to be ignored it can only be on the basis that its orders could 
not be challenged and if the orders stood, the plaintiff could not 
succeed 
because 
both sides held their 
respective 
properties on 
the basis of those orders. 
Basalingappagowda v. Secretary 
and 
Basangauda v. 
Secretary of 
approved. 
Province of Bombay v. 
103) distinguished. 
of State (48 Born. L.R. 651) 
State 
(32 Born. L.R. 1370) 
Hormusji Maneklal (74 I.A. 
-
ll eld also, that sec. 4 of the said Act would apply even if the 
only relief claimed in the suit against the Government was a 
declaration. 
Dattatreya Viswanath v. Secretary of State for India (I. L.R. 1948 
Born. 809) disapproved. Daulatrao v. 
Government of Bo

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