Skip to content


Basangauda Shiddangauda Chikangoudar Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 456 of 1925
Judge
Reported in(1930)32BOMLR1370
AppellantBasangauda Shiddangauda Chikangoudar
RespondentThe Secretary of State for India in Council
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
bombay revenue jurisdiction act (x of 1876), section 4 (a)-suit for declaration- watan lands-government a party to the, suit-jurisdiction-civil court.;a suit to obtain a declaration of title to patilki watan lands, to which the secretary of state for india is a party, is barred under section 4 (a) of the bombay revenue jurisdiction act. it makes no difference that the plaintiff does not seek an order against government as to the way in which the property should be dealt with, but only wants a declaration as to his title binding on government.;dattatraya keshav v. tukaram raghu (1920) i.l.r. 45 bom. 1141 : s.c. 23 bom. l.r. 376, distinguished. - .....and therefore no suit lies in the civil court under section 4 (a), first paragraph, of the bombay revenue jurisdiction act. mr. gumaste, who appears for the appellant, says that his claim is not a claim against the government but in that case he ought to strike out the government. he is not prepared to strike out the government, because if he does they will not be bound by these proceedings and will follow the decision of their revenue tribunals. therefore he wants to make the government a party in order that they may be bound. but, if they remain a party, it seems to me that there is a claim against them relating to property appertaining to the office of an hereditary officer, although no doubt it is quite true that the appellant does not desire to get any order against the.....
Judgment:

J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.

1. The question arises in this appeal whether the suit is barred under Section 4 (a) of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act. This is a technical point, and I express my opinion with great diffidence, but I am fortified by the view of my learned brother Baker J. The appellant is in this difficulty, viz., if the claim is against the Government, it is a claim which relates to property appertaining to the office of an hereditary officer, and therefore no suit lies in the civil Court under Section 4 (a), first paragraph, of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act. Mr. Gumaste, who appears for the appellant, says that his claim is not a claim against the Government but in that case he ought to strike out the Government. He is not prepared to strike out the Government, because if he does they will not be bound by these proceedings and will follow the decision of their revenue tribunals. Therefore he wants to make the Government a party in order that they may be bound. But, if they remain a party, it seems to me that there is a claim against them relating to property appertaining to the office of an hereditary officer, although no doubt it is quite true that the appellant does not desire to get any order against the Government as the way in which the property should be dealt with or anything of the sort, and he only wants a declaration as to his title which will bind Government. The case of Dattatraya Keskav v. Tukaram Raghu ILR (1920) 45 Bom. 1141 : 23 Bom. L.R. 267 to which Mr. Gumaste referred us as showing that the decision of the trial Judge was wrong, is not really an authority in point because that was not a claim against the Government, and the Court there was considering the third paragraph of Section 4 (a) of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, and not the first paragraph. In my view the appeal should be dismissed with costs both against the Secretary of State for India and the other respondents, and the order would be as in Appaji v. The Secretary of State for India ILR (1904) 28 Bom. 435 6 Bom. L.R. 438.


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