Bombay High Court
Balkrishna Chimnaji vs Balaji Ramchandra And Ors. on 4 August, 1884
Equivalent citations: (1885)ILR 9BOM25
JUDGMENT Charles Sargent, C.J.
1. In this case plaintiff had applied to the Assistant Collector to have his name entered on the register of representative vatandars, as the heir of Chimnaji, a registered vatandar, which was objected to by the defendants. By his present plaint he claims to be entitled to have his name entered in place of his father, and prays for a declaration that he is entitled to a one-fourth share in the kulkarni vatan and to have his name entered in the vatan register. The Subordinate Judge held that plaintiff ought to have sued to establish his right to be the adopted son of Chimnaji, and rejected his plaint. The District Judge held that the plaintiff's claim to have it declared that plaintiff is a one-fourth sharer in a vatan would not lie in a Civil Court, and confirmed the decree of the Subordinate Judge.
2. The decisions in Rhando Narayan Kulkarni v. Apaji Sadashiv Kulkarni I.L.R. 2 Bom. 370 and Chinto Abaji Kulkarni v. Lakshmibai I.L.R. 2 Bom. 375 show that since the passing of Act III of 1874, Civil Courts will not declare that persons are entitled to share in a valan solely with the view to inducing the Collector to place them on the register. But it is said by the appellant that those decisions are not applicable when the object of the suit is to have the plaintiff's name placed on the register as the heir of a deceased registered vatandar, a case which is specially provided for by Section 35 of the Act of 1874. That section however only contemplates the intervention of a Civil Court for the purpose of establishing the right of the claimant to be regarded as the adopted son of the deceased registered vatandar; and the plaintiff's suit ought, therefore, to have been limited to that object and nothing more. It is true that the Court cannot make a declaration of his right to a one-fourth share of the vatan, without first determining whether he is the adopted son of Chimnaji. But the declaration prayed for would, on the above authorities, be beyond the Court's jurisdiction, and, consequently, no decree could be made in the suit as at present framed, in which plaintiff's title as adopted son could be embodied. We must therefore, confirm the decree of the District Court, with costs.