Dharmadhikari, J. - (1.) The present appellants were defendants before the trial Court in suit for partition Instituted in the Court of Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Kagal, District Kolhapur in the State of Maharashtra. The suit filed by the deceased plaintiff (now represented by his legal representatives impleaded as respondents herein) for partition of the erstwhile Watan or Inam lands of his family was dismissed by the trial Court. The First Appellate Court by judgment of reversal decreed the suit of the plaintiff and it has been confirmed by the High Court in second appeal recognising the plaintiffs right of partition of the suit lands to the extent of 1/3 share. The preliminary decree has been framed for passing a final decree and grant of separate possession.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the defendants, assails the decree of partition granted to the plaintiff/respondent but does not dispute the legal position settled by the two Judges Bench decision of this Court in the case of Kalgonda Babgonda Patil vs. Balgonda Kalgonda Patil etc. etc. (AIR 1989 SC 1042) and three Judges Bench decision of this Court in the case of Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil vs. Balwant (1995) 2 SCC 543. In the aforesaid two Judges and three Judges Bench decisions of this Court, it has been held that erstwhile Inam or Watan lands held by the senior most member of the family through lineal descendant on the rule of primogeniture, on abolition of Inamdari or Watandari under the provisions of Bombay Pargana and Kulkarni Watans Abolition Act (60 of 1950) and thereafter by the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958, after re-grant of those categories of land to the Watandar or Inamdar, become partible properties between the members of the family of the Watandar or Inamdar. See the following statement of law in the decision of three Judges Bench in the case of Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil (supra): "The lineal primogeniture regulating succession to the estate cannot prevail under Section 4 of 1955 Act, as being nothing more than incidents of the watan which stand abrogated by Section 4 of that Act. It was, therefore, held that Watan families if had a hereditary interest in the Watan property, such inheritance enures to the benefit of all the members of the family as the property belongs to the family and all persons belonging to the watan family who had a hereditary interest in such watan property were entitled to called "watandars of the same watan" within the Watan Act. The members of the joint Hindu family must be regarded as holders of the watan land along with the watandar for the time being and therefore, the regrant of the lands to the watandar under Section 4 of that Act must enure to the benefit of the entire joint Hindu family. This Court upheld the Full Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court reported in Laxmibai Sadashiv Date vs. Ganesh Shankar Date and another judgment in Dhondi Vithoba Koli vs. Mahadeo Dagdu Koli. The Division Bench judgment in Babgonda case was overruled".
(3.) The first ground urged by the learned counsel for the defendants is that the original deceased plaintiff Bapu Koyappa Patil failed to prove his relationship with the main ancestor Suryaji, who was the first Watandar, hence his claim for partition to the extent of 1/3 share was rightly negatived by the trial Court.;