Skip to content


Ravji Mahadu Patil Vs. Sakuji Kaloji - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number Second Appeal No. 475 of 1909
Judge
Reported in(1910)12BOMLR204
AppellantRavji Mahadu Patil
RespondentSakuji Kaloji
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....of g., got his name entered in the collector's books as the next vatandar. r. died in 1903. the plaintiffs, the heirs of g., filed a suit in 1906, praying for a declaration that they were the heirs to the vatan and not the defendant. the lower courts held that the claim. was not barred under article 120 of the limitation act, 1877 :-;confirming the decree, that the plaintiffs' right to sue for a declaration would not accrue until r.'s death, whose existence at any time between g.'s death and her own would have defeated the suit for a declaration by the plaintiffs, on the ground that she had a vested right as the nearest heir of the last vatandar. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special..........an heir of vithoji in preference to the plaintiffs. this latter point does not appear to have been argued in the district court possibly because it was thought to be a hopeless point. the authorities are all against the defendant's contention, dating from the case of nissar mitrtojah v. kowar dhunwunt roy (1863) 1 marsh 609 up to that of shome shankar rajendra varere v. rajesar swami jangam ilr (1898) all. 99 and ramlinga muppan v. pavadai goundan ilr (1901) mad. 519. the contention is also opposed to the opinion expressed by the learned authors of west and buhler's hindu law at page 83. there is no caste custom proved in this case to support the defendant's contention. (see also mitakshara, chap, i, section ii, placitum 31).2. with regard to the point of limitation, we agree with the.....
Judgment:

Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.

1. In this case two points have been argued. First, that the suit is barred by limitation, and, secondly, that the defendant was entitled as an heir of Vithoji in preference to the plaintiffs. This latter point does not appear to have been argued in the District Court possibly because it was thought to be a hopeless point. The authorities are all against the defendant's contention, dating from the case of Nissar Mitrtojah v. Kowar Dhunwunt Roy (1863) 1 Marsh 609 up to that of Shome Shankar Rajendra Varere v. Rajesar Swami Jangam ILR (1898) All. 99 and Ramlinga Muppan v. Pavadai Goundan ILR (1901) Mad. 519. The contention is also opposed to the opinion expressed by the learned authors of West and Buhler's Hindu Law at page 83. There is no caste custom proved in this case to support the defendant's contention. (See also Mitakshara, Chap, I, Section II, placitum 31).

2. With regard to the point of limitation, we agree with the view taken by the learned District Judge. The plaintiffs' right to sue for a declaration would not accrue until the death of Reubai, whose existence at any time between the death of Ganpati and her own death would have defeated the suit for a declaration by the plaintiffs, on the ground that she had vested right as the nearest heir of the last Vatandar.

3. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.


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