BALASAHEB ANANDRAO GHATGE Vs. JAIMALA SAHAJI RAJE ANGRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present civil revision application arises out of an application made by the revision-applicant Balasaheb Anandrao Ghatge for a succession certificate. The matter has a chequered history and the point involved, though a narrow one, is important under the Hindu Law of Succession.

(2.) It appears that one Bhavanji Raje Ghatge who was a Watandar of certain lands was entitled to a cash allowance of Rs. 4,026/- per year from the Government. He died in the year 1910 leaving only his widow Laxmibai, The watan came to be abolished as per the provisions of the Bombay Pargana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950 which came into force on 1-5-1951. As per the said provisions, in view of the abolition of the watan, the watandar was entitled to get compensation equal to seven times the amount of the yearly cash allowance. The Collector, Satara by his order declared that Laxmibai the widow of the said Bhavanji Raje was entitled to get compensation of Rs. 28.182/-. This order was passed during the lifetime of Laxmibai who died on 22-4-1965. However this amount was not received by Laxmibai and remained with the Collector, Satara. Thereafter in the year 1963, Gojakkabai Kadambande the sister of Bhavanji Raje filed an application before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dahi-wadi for a certificate of succession to the said amount on the basis that she being the sister of Bhavanji Raje was entitled to the said amount lying to the credit of Laxmibai. That application was transferred to the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara and was numbered there as Miscellaneous Application No, 8 of 1963. The trial Court held in that application that the present applicant Balasaheb Ghatge was entitled to the succession certificate. He therefore dismissed the said application filed by Gojakkabai. Against that decision, Gajakkabai preferred an appeal being Civil Appeal No. 309 of 1964 in the District. Court which allowed Gojakkabm's appeal holding that Gojakkabai was entitled to the succession certificate. Against that decision, the present applicant preferred Civil Revision Application No. 1114 of 1965 in this Court. It appears that before that revision application came up for final hearing, Gojakkabai died on 16-8-1968 and hence this Court in the said revision application directed the present applicant to file a fresh application for getting the succession certificate. This Court also consequently quashed all the earlier orders passed in the matter The applicant then filed the present application before the trial Court for a succession certificate. It also further appears that an application was made on behalf of the Mukhtyars that the original opponents Nos. 3 to 6 who were the grand-children of the co-wife of the said Gojakkabai were the legal heirs and representatives and that they themselves had no interest in the proceedings. Accordingly, opponents Nos. 3 to 6 came to be joined as parties to the said application. The trial Court allowed the applicant's application under the condition that the applicant should be allowed to receive the compensation amount on his furnishing a security bond for the entire amount. Against the said decision dated 7-3-1074, the original opponent No. 3 Jai-mala the grand-daughter of the co-wife of the said Gojakkabai alone preferred an appeal. To that appeal the original opponents Nos. and 2 who were the Mukhtyars were not made parties, The Appeal Court by its decision dated 13-10-1975 allowed the appeal and quashed the order of the trial Court granting the certificate in favour of the applicant Balasaheb. It is against this decision that the present revision has been filed by Balasaheb Ghatge.

(3.) The short question that arises for decision in this application is whether it is the present applicant who claims to be the Bhauband or Kinsman of Bhavanji Raje, or the respondents who are the grand-children of the co-wife of the said Gojakkabai who was the sister of the said Bhavanji Raje, who are entitled to be preferred for the grant of the succession certificate. In order to appreciate the contentions of the rival parties, it is necessary to reproduce the genealogy which is Ex. 40 on record. The said genealogy is as follows :--