Skip to content


Vasudevanant Vs. Ramkrishna and Shivram Narayan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1878)ILR2Bom529
AppellantVasudevanant;ramkrishna and Shivram Narayan
RespondentRamkrishna and Shivram Narayan;The Government of Bombay
Excerpt:
.....142 of the constitution. said powers under article 142 of constitution is not available to the high court. hence no protection can be granted by high court even in cases relating to admissions. - as, for the foregoing reasons, we think that the plaintiffs must fail in this suit, it is unnecessary for us to consider whether the provision of bombay act ii of 1863, section 6, clause 2, as to non-recognition of adoption, is retrospective, i......that act came into force; or the question whether narayan, the original plaintiff, having given vasudev in adoption to anandrav, he (narayan) and his sons ramkrishna and shivram, who claim through him, would not be estopped from disputing the right of vasudev to succeed to anandrav's moiety of the inam village. upon these points we give no opinion. we reverse the decree of the district judge, and dismiss the suit. we direct the plaintiffs, ramkrishna and shivram, to pay the costs of the suit and of regular appeal no. 15; but as regards regular appeal no. 35 of 1877, we direct that the fees payable to the respective pleaders for the collector in the district court and in this court be calculated on the sum of rs. (130) one hundred and thirty, that being the amount which the stamp of.....
Judgment:

Michael Westropp, C.J.

1. We think that the decision of the Inam Commissioner of the 30th January 1865 was only intended to regulate the duration of the exemption of the village of Koliwadi from assessment, and not to regulate the enjoyment of it as between the heirs of the original grantee. There was not, in fact, any question, then, before the Inam Commissioner as to the right of Vasudev as adopted son of Anandrav. We are further of opinion that the provision in Bombay Act II of 1863, Section 6, Clause 2, as to non-recognition of adoption, by any Civil Court, etc., relates only to the question of the assess-ability of lands when raised between Government and a claimant of exemption. Here Government has recognized Vasudev as the adopted son of Anandrav, has. permitted him to hold the lands free from assessment, and admits his title. It is not open to the plaintiffs to rely upon a provision of which Government only is entitled to take advantage. As, for the foregoing reasons, we think that the plaintiffs must fail in this suit, it is unnecessary for us to consider whether the provision of Bombay Act II of 1863, Section 6, Clause 2, as to non-recognition of adoption, is retrospective, i.e., as to whether it is applicable to an adoption made before that Act came into force; or the question whether Narayan, the original plaintiff, having given Vasudev in adoption to Anandrav, he (Narayan) and his sons Ramkrishna and Shivram, who claim through him, would not be estopped from disputing the right of Vasudev to succeed to Anandrav's moiety of the inam village. Upon these points we give no opinion. We reverse the decree of the District Judge, and dismiss the suit. We direct the plaintiffs, Ramkrishna and Shivram, to pay the costs of the suit and of regular appeal No. 15; but as regards regular appeal No. 35 of 1877, we direct that the fees payable to the respective pleaders for the Collector in the District Court and in this Court be calculated on the sum of Rs. (130) one hundred and thirty, that being the amount which the stamp of Rs. (10) ten placed by the plaintiffs on their plaint and memorandum of appeal, No. 35 of 1877, so far as they seek a declaration against Government, would cover.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //