KAIKHUSROO MANEKSHAH TALYARKHAN Vs. GANGADAS DWARKADAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS litigation is concerned with the rights of the parties in the patilki watan of the village Masuti in the Bagewadi taluka of the Bijapur district. The plaintiff, whose suit has been dismissed by the trial Court and who now appeals, is the adopted son of one Giriyeppagauda, and as such claims to be entitled to the right of service as patil, and also to the lands in the possession of the defendants which form part of the watan. The last undisputed holder of the rights and lands in question was Ningangauda, the adopted son of Irappa Ningappa. He died in 1891, leaving no one in that particular branch of the family except a sister Ningava. The parties to the present litigation belong to collateral branches of the family. Their exact relationship to propositus is a matter of much dispute, but it is common ground that, apart from certain difficulties arising from the fact that Parutagauda, the ancestor of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, was given in adoption, to another family, their branch, i.e., the branch of defendants Nos. 1 and 2,, is more closely connected with Ningangauda's branch than that to which Giriyeppa, the plaintiff's adopted father, belonged. There is no dispute also as to the immediate pedigree of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 which is as follows : Parutagauda. San Irappa Mallangauda (defendantNo.1). Nagava = Rudragauda No.2) Baslingappa/(defendant (adopted). Rudragauda (given in adoption).

(2.) BASALINGAPPA died in 1877 without issue, but his widow Nagava adopted Rudragauda defendant No.2, son of Mallangauda defendant No.1, in 1900. It. may be mentioned, though it does not affect the case materially, that the propositus Ningangauda was also the natural son of defendant No.1 given by him in adoption to Irappa Ningappa and his wife Rudrava in 1887.

(3.) IN the plaint he prayed for the following reliefs : (a) a declaration that defendant No.2 was not the patilki watandar of Masuti, (b) a declaration that plaintiff is entitled to have his name entered in the watan register for the sixteen annas right of patilki service, and (c) possession of the lands in the possession of the defendants. That is to say, he seeks possession in this suit of the land which was assigned to those defendants by the compromise decree of 1902. The allegations in the plaint, so far as they are material, were that the adoption of defendant No.2 is invalid, that Baslingappa and San Irappa were born after the giving in adoption of their father Parutagauda, and that, even if the adoption of defendant No.2 is valid, he is not a watandar of the Masuti watan and therefore he would acquire no right to the lands in suit under the compromise decree.