Naranjan Singh v. The State of Punjab

the plaintiff could not be given even claimed against defendants 1 and 2 alone, as the against these defendants could not be divorced ' against the Government and considered separately; the reliefs rights claimed the claim (iii) in any event if the claim against the Government was to be ignored it can only be on the basis that its orders could not be challenged and if the orders stood, the plaintiff could not succeed because properties on the basis of those orders. both sides held their respective Basalingappagowda v. Secretary and Basangauda v. Secretary of approved. Province of Bombay v. 103) distinguished. of State (48 Born. L.R. 651) State (32 Born. L.R. 1370) Hormusji Maneklal (74 I.A. ll eld also, that sec. 4 of the said Act would apply even if the the suit against the Government was a relief claimed declaration. Dattatreya Viswanath v. Secretary of State for India (I. L.R. 1948 Born. 809) disapproved. Daulatrao v. Government of Bombay (47 Born. L.R. 214) approved. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1950. Appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Bombay (Bhagwati and Dixit JJ.) dated 16th December, 1948, in Second Appeal No. 1226 of 1945 confirming a judgment and decree of the District Judge of Dharwar in Appeal No. 123 of 1943. The facts of 1952 8h#njangrao Da11/atrao v. M•lojirao Da14/a1rao and Others. 404• SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1952] the case and the the judgm_ent. arguments of the counsel appear iil B. Somayya and Sanjiva Rao Naidu (N. C. Shaw, with them) for the appellant. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-Genaal for India, M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, (V. N. · Lokur, with him) for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. ( G. N. Joshi, with him) for respondent No. 3 (the State of Bombay.) 1952. Judgment was delivered January

#30. BosE J .. PATANJALI with BQse J. SAsTRI C. J. and DAs J. agreed BosE J.-The plaintiff appeals. The suit relates to a Saranjam estate in the State of Bombay. The plaintiff claims to' be the sole Saran- jamdar and seeks certain declarations and other reliefs appropriate to such a claim. The first and second defendants are members of the plaintiff's family while the third defendant is the State of Bombay (Province of Bombay at the date of the suit) • . The only question is whether the suit is barred by section 4(a) of Bombay Act X of 1876 (Bombay Rev- enue Jurisdiction Act). The following genealogical tree will show the relation- ship between the parties : - Bhujangrao Appasaheb (British Grantee) I Daulatrao I (died 24-7-1864) I Mal.ojirao I Daulatrao III (Def. 1) ·----. I Yeshwantrao alias Annasaheb . I Bhuiangrao II (Def. 2) r--------- 1 Bhujangfao 1 (died 1881) I (widow) Krishnabai Daulatrao II (died 8-5-1931) I . Bhl\langrao III (Plaintiff) 1951 Bhunjangrao Daulatrao. v. Malojirao Daulatrao and Others. Bose/. :S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 405 The facts are as follows. A common ancestor of the _present parties was given the Gajendragad estate as a Saranjam .some time before the advent of the British. When they arrived on the scene they decided, as far as possible, to continue such Sararijams, jagirs and inams as had been granted by the earlier rulers, and accord- ingly they framed rules under Schedule B, Rule 10 of ·Bombay Act XI of 1852 (The Bombay Rent Free Estates AGt of 1852) to regulate the mode of recognition :and the succession and conditions of tenure to Saran- In compliance jams, which are with this, the common ancestor shown at the head of the genealogical tree set out above was recognised by the British Government as the Saranjamdar of ·Gajendragad estate. He may for convenience be ter- med the British Grantee. The Register Ex. P-53 shows that the estate consisted of 26 villages. We do not know the date of the British recognition but the nature of the tenure is described as follows :- analogous to jagirs. to all male "Continuable the time of British the holder at 'Bhujangrao Appasaheb, son of Bahirojirao Ghorpade." legitimate descendants of conquest, viz., first British Grantee, On the death of the British Grantee (Bhujangrao Appasaheb) he was succeeded by his son Daulatrao I who died on the 24th of July, 1864. This Daulatrao I Malojirao. sons, Bhujangrao I, Y eshwantrao In the year 1866 Bhujangrao I and his brother Y esh- wantrao alia1 Annasaheb sued Malojirao for possession -0£ this Saranjam. A question of impartibility was raised but the Bombay High Court declared that the property in British India was partible. They further declared that Bhujangrao I was the head of the familv and as such was entitled to a special assignment which was not to exceed a quarter share, for the expenses and duties which might devolve on him by virtue of his position, and that after this had been set aside each of the three brothers was entitled to an equal one-third share in the landed property in India. This judgment . :::.. -J - ' 406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1952} 1952 Bhunjangrao Daulatrao v. Maloiirao Daulatrao and Others. Bose/. is reported in 5 Born. H.C.R. 161. The duties enumerat- ed at page 170 included the "keeping up of armed the fort of Gajendragad, and for the im· retainers for provement of that village, which was the chief seat of this branch of the Ghorpade family, and also to enable him to distribute on ceremonial occasions the custom· ary presents junior members of the family." The judgment is dated the 12th of October, 1868. to the As a consequence a division of the property wa!> effected. Malojirao separated himself from his brothers and was allotted brothers remainder. But this was only with respect to property situate in British India. State of Kolhapur. That was .The parties also had property left undivided. villages. The other continued Bhujangrao I died in 1881 and his younger brother Y eshwantrao (alias Annasaheb) claimed to succeed as the sole heir. The Political Department of the Govern- ment of India refused to recognise this claim and per- mitted Bhujangrao I's widow Krishnabai to . adopt a a boy from the family and recognised him as the heir in respect of that portion of the estate which lay within the Principality of Kolhapur. This was on the 3rd of February, 1882. The Bombay Government followed a similar course regarding the property in British India. On the 26th of April, 1882, they passed a Resolution embodying the following decision : ( 1) The adoption was to be recognised and the adopted son was to occupy the same position as his adoptive father, that is to ·say, he was to get one-third of tl~e property plus the assignment given · to him as head of the family. (2) Malojirao who had already taken his share of the estate was to continue in possession. (3) Yeshwantrao the option of remaining joint with the adopted boy or separating. (alias Annasaheb) was Finally, the Resolution concluded- .... - .... S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 407 .. ' "The two brothers will hold their respective shares as their private property in virtue of the decree of the the J ahagir will henceforth be res- High Court and tricted to the portion awarded by the High Court to Bhujangrao which the adopted son will now inherit. It should however be clearly understood that the deci- sion of the High Court is not to be held as a precedent and that no partition of the Jahagir Estate to be con- tinued to the adopted son will ever be allowed." 1952 Bhuniangrao. Daulatrao v. Malo; irao Daulatrao and 0 th~rt. Bos~/. _. • • ,. . This position was emphasised by Government in the same year on the 22nd August, 1882. Krishnabai, who had been allowed by Government to adopt Daulatrao in the II, asked estate be also treated as private property in the same way as two brothers. This prayer was refused and Government stated : that her husband's one-third the shares of the other "It should be plainly understood that Government allow the adoption to be made by her only in considera- tion of Bhujangrao's one-third share as well portion assigned to him as head of the family being continued to Jahagir adopted son as Estate descending in the line of male heirs in the order of primogeniture and subject to no terms whatsoever as to the enjoyment of the same by Krishnabai during her lifetime." indivisible The position was re-examined by Government in 1891 and its decision was embodied in the following resolution dated the 17th of March, 1891 : "It appears Government the whole Gajendragad Estate is a Saranjam continuable as here- ditary in the fullest sense of the word as interpreted by the Court of Directors in paragraph 9 of their Despatch No. 27 dated 12th' December, 1855. It is continuable to all male legitimate descendants of the holder at the time of the British conquest; and should Government ever sanction an adoption the terms of sanction would be those applicable to Saranjamdars. The property should be dealt with like other Saranjams in the Political Department." 53 '. .... .. 1952 Bhunjangrao D11Hl111rao Y. J4R/ojirll0 DRHlatrao "'ml Others. Bos•], 408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1952] partition. the other two brothers continued In the year 1901 the adopted son Daulatrao II sued Yeshwantrao's It son Bhujangrao II for will be remembered that in the litigation of 1866, which ended in the Bombay High Court's judgment reported in 5 Born. H.C.R. 161, Malojirao alone separated joint. The litigation of 1901 put an end to that position. The High Court's judgment dated the 12th of March, 1908, makes it clear · that as Government was not a party to that litigation its rights against either or both of the parties were not affected. But as between the parties inter se they were bound by the previous decisiol'I and so the adopted son was entitled to partition and sepa- rate possession of ~uch properties as might fall to his share. After this decision was given the two partitioned the property between themselves amicably. fourteen of the villages In or about the year 1930 a Record of Rights was introduced in Gajendragad Jahagir and a dispute arose again between the three branches of the family. The District Deputy C,ollector, "the name has found place in Saranjam register," while in the other village records the various members of the family were entered according the "actual wahivat or enjoyment." inspecting the Khatedar Saranjamdar the village Inam register, in the records, alienation After due consideration he thought that the interest of Government the Saranjamdar would be sufficiently safeguarded by allowing the same position to be made to con6nue. He ordered accordingly. The order also discloses that the matter had been referred to the Legal Remembrancer to the Bombay Government. the entries In the meanwhile, on the 5th of May, 1898, a set of Rules framed under Schedule B, Rule 10, of the Bombay Rent Free Estates Act of 1852 were drawn up and the Bombay Gazette. These Rules were published in republished, probably with some modification, in Gazette of 8th July, 1901. The portions applicable here were as follows :- 1952 Bhuniangrao Daulatrao v. Malo; irao Daulatrao and Others. Bo;e / . S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 409 "I. Saraniams shall accordance with Government in each case. ordinarily be decision continued already passed by II. A Saranjam which has been decided to be hereditarily continuable shall ordinarily descend the eldest male representative, in the order of primo- geniture, of the senior branch of the family descended from the first British Grantee or any of his brothers who were undivided in interest. But Government reserve to themselves their rights for sufficient reason to direct the continuance of the Saranjam to any. other member of the $aid family, or as to a person sanction of adopted into Government. * an act of grace, same family with * . .:.., - V. Every Saranjam shall be held as a life estate. It shall be formally resumed on the death of the holder and in cases in which it is capable of further continuance it shall be made over to the next holder as a· fresh grant from Government, unencumbered by. any debts, or imposed by such as may be specially charges, 5ave Government itself. >· VI. No Saranjam shall be capable sub-divi- sion .. - .~ VII. Every Saranjamdar responsible for making a suitable provision for the maintenance of .... " (certain members of the family enumerated m the Rule). reason may be, direct IX. 'If an order passed by Government under Rule VII is not carried out, Government may, what-_ the Saranjam, or a ever the portion of it, members of the Saranjamdar's family entitled to main- tenance shall then be made by Government out of the revenues of the Saranjam so resumed." to be resumed .... Provision After the District Deputy Collector's orders were pas- sed on the 20th of May, 1930, Daulatrao II died on the 8t11 of May, 1931, and the matter was again taken up following by Government. This time it passed 1952 Bhunjangrao Dau/atrao v. Malojirao Daulatrao and Others. Bose /. • 410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1952] Resolution on the 7th of June, 1932. The Resolution was headed, "Resumption and regrant of the Gajend- ragad Saranjam standing at No. 91 of the Saranjam List." It reads- eldest resumed "Resolution :-The Governor-in-Council 1s pleased that the Gajendragad Saranjam should be to direct to Bhujangrao regranted formally the deceased Daulatrao Ghorpade Saranjamdar Sardar Daulatrao Bhujangrao Ghorpade and that it should be entered in his sole name in the accounts of the Collector of Dharwar with effect from the date of the death of the last holder. The Collector take steps to place the Saranjamdar in posses- should sion of the villages of the Saranjam estate which were in possession of the deceased Saranjamdar. son of

#2. The Governor-in-Council Commissioner, Southern Division, that the assignments held by the Bhaubands as should be continued to them as at present." potgi holders agrees The Bhujangrao mentioned in the Resolution is the 1 shown as Bhujangrao III plaintiff who is genealogical tree. The defendants were evidently aggrieved by this, (or they filed Suit No. 23 of 1934 against the present plaintiff and the Secretary of State for India in Council praying inter alia "that the properties in suit, viz., the villages allotted to their shares, were their independent and private properties and in case were held to be . Saranjam properties, they be declared separate and distinct from the one held by the present plaintiff." independent Saranjams, cause of the same This suit was withdrawn with liberty to bring a fresh suit on action against the present plaintiff but not against the Secretary of State for India in Council. According to defendants 1 and this was pursuant to an arrangement between the 2, Government and that Government would issue a fresh Resolution in terms of the earlier Resolu- tion dated the 17th of March, 1891. themselves ...: . - - 1952 Bhunjangrao Daulatrao v. Malojirao Daulatrao and Others. Bose/. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 411 This was done. On the 25th of February, 1936, Government passed the following Resolution:- stated careful conditions inalienable the orders consideration "Resolution:-After Governor-in-Council 1s pleased to confirm the decision in Government Resolution (Political Department) No. 1769 dated the 17th of March, 1891, and to declare that the whole of the Gajendragad Estate shall be impartible continuable Saranjam on Resolution.· Having regard, however, to the manner in which different portions of the estate have been held the Governor-in- by different branches of the family, Council, in modification of contained Government Resolution No. 8%9 dated the 7th June, 1932, is ?leased to direct that the portions of the said estate held by Sardar Bhujangrao Daulatrao Ghorpade, Bhujangrao Daulatrao Malojirao Ghorpade shall henceforth Yeshwantrao Ghorpade, respectively, be entered in the Revenue Records as de facto shares the said persons as repre- in the said estate held by sentatives, Ghorpade family. Each of the said de facto shares shall be continuable hereditarily as such as if it were ~ separate Saranjam estate rules made for the continuance of Saranjams by the Governor-in-Council in exercise of the powers referred to in the rules framed under the Bombay Rent Free Estates Act, 1852, and the Bombay (VII of 1863) and such Summary Settlement Act special orders as the Governor-in-Council may make in regard to the Gajendragad Estate as a whole or in regard to the said share. The recognition of the afore- their entry in the Revenue Records said shares and ~ separate shares shall not be deemed to amoua.t to a recognition of the estate of Gajendragad as in any manner partible or alienable and shall not in any way affect the right of_ Government to treat the said estate inalienable Saranjam estate. accordance with section 2(3) of impartible and three branches respectively entire - - ...

#2. The Governor-in-Council the aforesaid shares further directs in no case be capable of 1952 Bhuniangrao Daulatrao v. Ma/o;irao Daulatrao and bthers. Bose f. 412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1952} sub-division and shall not in any way be alienated or encumbered except m accordance with the rules and orders referred to above ... " 1s an attack on The present suit action of Government in passing this Resolution. The first and second defendants are the present representatives of the other branches of the family and the third defend- ant is the State of Bombay). The plaint states- the Province of Bombay (now . jurisdiction "9. Government to. deprive the plaintiff at any rate during his lifetime of the full benefit of all aper- taining to the holder of a Sarani am. The Order of Government of the 8th February, 1936 therefore, ultr.a vires and in no way binding on the present plaintiff ..... . the rights and privileges is,

#10. Defendants 1 and 2, therefore, are not entitled to any rights or privileges claimable by the holder of a Saranjam which according to the G. R. is continu- inalienable and . impartible Saranjam', such able 'as an in the matter of appointment of the as for example village officers m any of the 27 villages appertaining to the Gajendragad Saranjam. -

#12. As this I and 2, defendant 3

#11. The cause of action a~ose in April 1938 and the resolution and the entry being ultra "titres is not binding ... relief primarily is a suit claiming for against defendants is made a party to the suit in order to enable Government (defend ant 3) to give proper effect to the decision of Govern ment of the 17th March, 1891, and of 7th June, 1932, as against defendants I and 2 who have no right to the position which they claim ... " The reliefs prayed for are- " (a) That is be declared that defendants I and 2 have no right to go behind the order of the Government as per Resolution No. 8969 of 7th June, 1932, under which plaintiff ·is entitled to be recognised as the sole Saranjamdar the Revenue Records, and that the assignments held by defendants 1 and 2 are held by them as mere potgi holders. •• .... - .. .... . •. ./ . 1952 Bhuiangr111:1 Daulatrao v. Malojirao Daulatrao and Other$ Bose /. $.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 413 (b) That in consequence of his position of a sole Saranjamdar, the plaintiff alone at any rate during his lifetime has the sole right to the rights and privileges appertaining to the post of a sole Saranjamdar, to wit, the village to be consulted in the appointment of officers in all the villages appertaining to the Saranjam estate, but assigned to defendants 1 and 2 for potgi ..• ( c) Defendants 1 and 2 be restrained from doing in contravention of the any acts or taking any steps aforesaid right of the plaintiff. (d) That it be declared that defendant 3 (Govern- ment) have no right to change the Resolution No. 8969 rate during the lifetime of 7th June, 1932, and at any of the plaintiff." The first Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the merits holding that Government had the right to amend its Resolution in the way it did. The lower appellate Court also dismissed the suit on three grounds: (1) that the two previous decisions of 1868 and 1908 operate as the im- intra vires and (3) that section 4 pugned Resolution 1s (a) and (d) of the Revenue Jurisdiction Act bars the jurisdiction of the Court. res iudicata, (2) .that In second appeal the High Court only considered the question of jurisdiction and, agreemg with the lower appellate Court on the point, dismissed the appeal but · it granted the plaintiff leave to appeal to this Court. The only question we have to consider is the one of jurisdiction. Section 4 of the Bombay Revenue Juris- diction Act, 1876 (Bombay Act X of 1876), runs~ - - ........ Subject to the exceptions hereinafter appearing, no Civil Court shall exercise jurisdiction as to- (a) . . . claims against the Crown relating to lands ... held as Saranjam ... " It was strenuously contended that this is not a claim against the Crown but one against the first and second defendants. That, m my opinion, is an idle conten- tion in view of paragraphs 9 and 12 of the plaint and reliefs (a) and (d). In any event, Mr. Somayya was asked whether he would strike out the third defendant 4-'--5 S.C. India/71 1952 ~ Bhujangrao Daulatrao v. Malo; irao Daulatrao and Others. Bose/. 414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1952] and those portions of the plaint which sought relief against it. He said he was not prepared I cannot see how a plaintiff can insist on retaining a person against whom he claims no relief as a party. I am clear that this is a suit against the "Crown" within the meaning of section 4(a). to do so. sought case, it appertaining rights and privileges The next question is whether, assuming that to be ts also one "relating to lands held as reliefs against Saranjam." So as the the case. that . is clearly concerned, Government are challenges Government's Paragraph 9 of the plaint full benefit jurisdiction to deprive the plaintiff of the of all holder of a Saranjam. These rights cannot exist form part of lands which implication of the prayer Saranjam estate is that Government has, right to resume the Saranjam either under Rule V on the death of the last Saranjamdar or under Rule IX during his It 1s to be observed that a resumption under lifetime. Rule the rule directs that when the Saranjam is resumed Govern- ment itself shall make provisions for the maintenance of those entitled to it "out of the revenues of Saranjam so resumed." These revenues can only come out of the land. IX can only be of the for example, no land because Relief ( d) in the prayer clause seeks a declaration that Government has no right to change Resolution No. 8969 dated the 7th of June, 1932. That Resolution directly relates to the it directs that the Gajendragad Saranjam be resumed and the Collector is directed to take steps to place the Saranjamdar in pos- session of the villages· of the Saran jam estate etc. land because It is impossible to contend that this is not a claim relating to lands held as Saranjam. It was next argued that if that be tlte case the claim against Government can be dismissed and the plaintiff can at least be given the it was contended, do not relate to land and in any event are not claims against the "Crown". two defendants. These, reliefs claimed against .... - - .. 1952 Bhujangrao Daulatrao v. Malojirao Daulatrao and Others. Bose/. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 415 In my opinion, this is not a suit in which the rights the other defendants can be divor- claimed against ced from the claim against Government and considered separately. That is evident enough from paragraph 10 of the plaint. In paragraph 9 the power of Govern- ment to deprive the plaintiff of the rights he claims is challenged and in paragraph 10 of the plaintiff explains that "therefore" the first and second defendants are not to any of the rights and privileges of the entitled Saranjamdar. One of those rights, as we · have seen from Rules VII and IX, is to take the revenues of the entire estate in order that he might fulfil his obligation regarding certain members of the family; and if the d~fendants claim to hold their lands under the orders of Government and the plaintiff insists on retaining Government as a party in order that it may be bound by the decree he wants against the other defendants that his claim against separated from his claim against the Government. • obvious these defendants cannot . be of maintenance the payment it 1s In any event, if the claim against Government is to be ignored it can only be on the basis that its orders cannot be challenged and if it 1s evident that the plaintiff can have no hope of success because both sides hold their respective properties on the basis of those orders. the orders stand There are two decisions of the Bombay High Court this view. Basalingappagouda v. which have The Secretary of State for India(1) was a Watan case. the second defendant as Government had recognised the W atandar. Plaintiff sued Government and second defendant and sought a declaration and in- junction. On being faced with the dilemma that the suit against Government did not lie because of section 4 (a) (3) of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act of 1876, the Court, as here, to leave the Government he asked out of consideration and decree his claim against second defendant alone. The learned Judges held that relief that would amount sought against both the defendants and would entirely to striking out the main . (I) 28 Born. L.R. 651. - - ,. 416 . . SUPREME COURT REPORTS . . i [1952J 1952 Bhujangrao Daulatrao v. Malojirao Daulatrao and Others. Bos< /. . "'lo.. ... .. - change the character of the suit and added that "as lo1,1g as the Secretary of State is a party to the suit, such a declarat:ton could not be granted." In the other case, Basangauda v. The Secretary of State('), Beaumont C. J. and Baker J. took the same view. They said- "Mr. Gumaste, who appears for the appellant, says that his claim is not a claim against the Government but in that case he ought to strike out the Government. He is not prepared to strike out the Government, because if he does they will not be bound by these pro- ceedings and will follow the decision of their revenue tri- bunals. Therefore, he wants to make the Government a party in order tliat they may be bound. But, if they it seems to me tha~ there is a claim remain a party, to the against them relating to property appertaining office of an hereditary officer, although no doubt it is quite true that the appellant does not desire to get any order against the Government as to the way in which the pl'bperty should be dealt with or anything of the sort, and he only wants a declaration as to his title which will bind Government." They held that the jurisdiction of the courts was ousted. It was next contended, on the strength of a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council report- ed in Province of Bombay v. Hormusji Manekji( 2 ), to decide whether jurisdiction that the courts have Government acted· in powers and that excess of its that question must be decided first. In my opinion, this decision does not apply here. Their Lordships were dealing with a case falling under section 4(b) of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdic- tion Act of 1876. That provides that- ". . . no Civil Court shall exercise jurisdiction as to ..... . * (b) objections to the amount o~ incidence of any assessment of land revenue authorised by the Provin- cial Government." (!) 32 Born. L.R. 1370. (2) 74 I.A. 103. > . ..... ,... - :S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS F - • I 1 ' ' 417 1952 Bhujangrao Daulatrao v. Malojirao Daulatrao and Others. Bose/ . the levy of As ·pointed out by Strangman K. C., on behalf of the "duly plaintiff respondent, "authorised" must mean authorised," and in that particular case the impugned .assessment would not be duly authorised if the Govern- treat the ment Resolution of 11-4-1930 purporting .agreement relied on by the respondent as cancelled and the full assessment was ultra authorising vires under section 211 of the Land Revenue Code. Thus, before the exclusion of the Civil Court's jurisdic- tion under section 4(b) could come into play, the Court had to determine the issue of ultra vires. Consequently, their Lordships held that that question was outside the is different. scope of the bar. But the position here We are concerned here with section 4(a) and under that no question about an authorised act of Govern- ment arise5. The section is general and bars all "claims relating .against Saranjam." That is to say, even if the Government's lands was ultra vires, a claim act in relation to such impugning the validity of such an act would fall within the scope of (a) provided it relates to such land. lands.... held the exclusion the Crown in clause against Government There is a difference of opinion in the Bombay High is attracted if the only ·Court as to whether section 4 relief sought is a declaration. One set of decisions holds that that does not amount against Government." Dattatraya Vish "to a "claim wanath v. The Secretary of State for lndia(1) is typical ·Of that view. On the other hand, Daulatrao v. Govern ment of Bombay(2), a case relating to the Gajendragad In my opinion, the latter ·estate, took the ot~er view. ·view is correct. In my opinion, the decision of the High Court was :right and I would dismiss the appeal with costs. PATANJALI SASTRI · C. · J.--:J agree . .S. R. DAs J.-I agree. Appeal dismissed Agent for the appellant : Ganpat Rai. Agent for respondents Nos. 1 & 2 : M. S. K. Sastri. Agent for respondent No. 3 : P. A. Mehta. (I) I.L.R. 1948 B°.m. 809 at 820. (2) 47 Born. L.R. 214.