Grover, J. - (1.) These appeals have been brought by special leave from a judgment of the Mysore High Court. The parties to the proceedings out of which the appeals have arisen belong to Handiagnur Desai Family which was a Watandar Family. The Family had different types of Watans and was governed by the Bombay Hereditary Officers Act 1864, popularly known as the Watan Act. The items of Watan included the offices of Kulkarni and Patil and other rights in respect of some village in the district of Dharwar. The family owned Watan as well as non-Watan lands apart from moveable property.
(2.) About the year 1910 certain disputes arose among the junior and the senior branches of the family regarding the partition and other arrangements relating to the property. The eldest branch of the family represented now by the respondents claimed rights on the basis of primogeniture, the junior members being entitled only to maintenance. Suit No. 166 of 1910 was filed in the court of the District Judge, Dharwar, by the predecessors-in-interest of the present appellants in which one of the reliefs claimed was for partition of the one half share of the plaintiffs in the immovable and movable properties described in schedule A annexed to the petition. In that suit a compromise was effected between the parties on the basis of which a decree was passed on January 11, 1913. It was declared that the suit property was impartible. It was further declared that as the suit property was impartible defendant No. 1 (in that suit) was the only owner of the said property in accordance with the custom of the family. The plaintiffs and defendants 2, 3 and 4 now represented by the appellants were declared as having no right of ownership but they had a right to maintenance. They were allotted certain lands by way of maintenance but the liability of payment of the Government dues like Judi assessment, local funds etc. was to be that of the eldest branch. In other words the eldest branch (represented by the present respondents) was to hold the property in question but the junior branch represented by the present appellant was to get possession of certain lands for maintenance . However the eldest branch being the owner was liable for the payment of the Government dues. It appears that prior to 1950 the State of Bombay decided to bring all the Watan property on the same line as Ryotwari property and subject it to payment of land revenue. Legislation was enacted abolishing various types of inams. One of such enactments was the Bombay Pargana and Kulkarni Watan (Abolition) Act 1950, hereinafter called the 'Act' which came into force on May 1, 1951. The scheme of the Act broadly was to abolish the incidents of Watan and make Watan property liable to payment of land revenue. There were provisions with regard to regrant of the propertyd to the holder of the Watan. By virtue of the coming into operation of the Act the properties in dispute stood resumed to the Government. The appellants as holders took steps for regrant in accordance with the provisions of the Act and after paying the necessary occupancy price got the property regranted but those proceedings were not completed before July 27, 1956. In March 1955 the appellant M. B. Manle Desai filed a suit against Sardar Bullappa who represented the senior branch of the family for recovery of Rs. 1530-12-0 together with interest on account of the amount paid by way of Government dues for the years 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54 by reason of the terms contained in the compromise decree, Bullappa died during the pendency of the litigation and is now represented by the present respondents. A similar suit was filed by the other appellant Gangabai for recovery of Rs. 1437 with interest. According to the case of the plaintiffs in both the suits it was the defendant who was liable for payment of the Government dues although the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs were put in possession of the suit properties in lieu of maintenance payable to them. The position taken up by the defendant was that although under the terms of the compromise decree he was liable to pay the Government Judi and local funds which he continued to do upto the year 1950-51 but after the Act came into force his liability came to an end and it was the plaintiff alone in each suit who was bound to pay the full assessment relating to the lands. The trial court decreed both the suits and those decrees were confirmed by the first appellate court. The High Court, however, in the second appeals which were brought before it followed its decision in another similar case and held that the agreement embodied in the compromise decree could no more be binding on the parties in view of the resumption of the Pargana Watans and regrant of the same to the plaintiffs under the Act.
(3.) In order to determine the controversy between the parties it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Watan Act and the Act itself. According to S. 4. Watan property meant moveable and immoveable property held, acquired or assigned for providing remuneration for the performance of the duty appertaining to an hereditary office. Hereditary office was an office which was held hereditarily for the performance of a duty connected with the administration or collection of the public revenue or with the village police or with the settlement of boundaries or other matters of civil administration. The Watan property, if any, and the hereditary office and the rights and privileges attached to them together constituted the Watan. A Watandar was a person having an hereditary interest in a watan (see Section 4 of the Watan Act). If any alienation of watan property was made the Collector was bound to declare it null and void and resume possession of that property; (Ss. 11 and 11A). Section 15 of the Watan Act provided for commutation of service. The Collector could, with the consent of a holder of a watan, given in writing, relieve him and his heirs and successors of their liability to perform service upon such conditions as might be agreed upon. After referring to the relevant provisions of the Watan Act it was observed in The Collector of South Satara v. Laxman Mahadev, (1964) 2 SCR 48 that the Watan property, if any, the hereditary office, and the rights and privileges attached thereto together constituted a watan and a hereditary office did not lose its character merely because the service originally appertaining to the office had ceased to be demanded. The State having created the watan was entitled to put an end to the watan, i.e. to cancel the watan and to resume the grant. The State Government could abolish the office and release the property from its character as watan property. Keeping in view the above provisions of the Watan Act we may refer to the material provisions of the Act itself.;