Sasangauda Shiddangauda Chikandar And Others v. Secy. Of State

Beaumont, C.J:— The question arises this appeal whether the suit is barred under Section 4(a) of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act. This is a technical point, and express my opinion with great diffidence ??? I am fortified by the view of my learned brother Baker, J. The appellant in this difficulty, viz., if the claim is ??? the Government, it is a claim which relates to property appertaining the office of an hereditary officer, and therefore no suit lies in the civil Court der Section 4(a), para. 1, Bombay Revenue jurisdiction Act. Mr. Gumaste, who appears for the appellant, says that his ??? is not a claim against the ??? but in that case he ought to strike ??? the Government. He is not prepared strike out the Government, because if ??? does they will not be bound by these proceedings and will follow the decision their revenue tribunals. Therefore wants to make the Government party in order that they may be bound, ??? if they remain a party, it seems to ??? a that there is a claim against them ??? to property appertaining to the ??? of an hereditary officer, although ??? 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.

2. The case of Dattatraya Keshav v. Tukaram Raghu (1), 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 para. 3, Section 4(a) of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, and not para. 1. 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. Secy. of State (2).

R.M/R.K

3. Appeal Dismissed.