Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

    Ravlojirav v. Balvantrav Venkatesh

    Westropp, C.J:— The Subordinate Judge should have considered what was the law as to alienation of their vatans by hereditary officers at the time of the alienation by Tamajirav, viz., the 29th November, 1840, and not what it may be now. In 1840, Regulation XVI of 1827 was in full force, and invalidated, as against the heirs of the alienor, any alienation of vatan property: Kalu Ndrayan v. Hanmapa. See also the interpretations of Ragulation XVI of 1827 made by the Sadar Adalat on the 23rd February, 1831, and the 5th December, 1834, which show that such an alienation was effective during the life-time of the alienor only, and the observations in 4 Bom. H.C Rep. 12 and 13 et seq.; and Ind. L.R, 1 Bom. 536, 537. The alienor in the present case, Tamajirav, died in A.D 1869, as was established in Regular Appeal 56 of 1876, decided here on the 10th January, 1878, when the adoption of the present defendant and appellant Ravlojirav, alias Dinkarrav, was upheld. The present plaintiff Balvantrav was dispossessed on the 11th September, 1877: so he cannot have had twelve years' adverse possession of the village as against the appellant, whose title accrued in 1869 on the death of his adoptive father Tamajirav. It is unnecessary for us to say anything as to the state of the law at present with respect to alienation of vatan property, or of property which has been vatani in its nature. It is not denied that in 1840, when the alienation here took place, the village of Umbrani was a deshgati vatan. Tamajirav could only alienate it for his life. The alienation was, in its inception, void as against his heirs. We must, therefore, reverse the decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge, and make a decree for the defendant, with costs of suit and appeal. The plaintiff must refund to the defendant any mesne profits realized from the village (after allowing all proper expenses) since the plaintiff was put into possession of the village under the decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge, and the defendant (appellant) must be reinstated in possession.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Ravlojirav v. Balvantrav Venkatesh
    (Aug 25, 1880)