Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. Now, under the Watan Act the watan properly so called consists of the watan property, if any, and the hereditary office and the rights and privileges attached to them, and "watandar" means a person having an hereditary interest in the watan. The question which has been referred to the Full Bench is whether the word "watandar" necessarily and always means a person who has an hereditary interest not only in the watan property, but also in the hereditary office. If the words used in defining "watandar" arc strictly and literally construed, it would mean that before a person can be said to be a watandar he must have an hereditary interest both in the watan property and in the hereditary office, because it is these two that constitute the watan. But the Watan Act itself adds to the aforesaid definition of "watandar" by providing that the said word Includes a person holding watan property acquired by him before the introduction of British Government into the locality of the watan, or legally acquired subsequent to such introduction, and a person holding such property from him by inheritance. It also includes a person adopted by an owner of a watan or part of a watan subject to the conditions specified in Sections 33 to 35. It is not disputed that before the enactment of the Watan Act in 1874 and of Regulation XVI of 1827 watans were treated as ordinary property which could be divided and alienated at will. Naturally the alienation could be with regard to the office and the property or with regard to either of them. The addition made to the definition of "watandar" clearly provides that a person who may have acquired watan property before the introduction of British Government must be regarded as a watandar. It is significant that it is not required of such a person that he must have acquired the hereditary office along with the watan 'property; it would be enough if he has acquired watan property and the acquisition of such property would make him a watandar. It would thus be clear that the inclusion of such a person in the category of watandars clearly suggests that it would be enough if the person claiming the status of a watandar is in possession not of the watan property as well as the office, but of the watan property alone. The same considerations may apply to persons who acquire watan property legally subsequent to the introduction of British rule. In their case also it is not necessary that they should have acquired both the hereditary office and the watan property before they could be called watandars under the Watan Act. In Tarabai's case, however, it was held that a person who merely acquires watan property without acquiring the office and without being under any obligation to perform services attached to the office is not a watandar within the meaning of the Act. On the other hand, in Kadappa's case where the Court was dealing with watan property which was impartible and was governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture it was held that the family of the plaintiff and the defendants did not for that reason necessarily cease to be a joint Hindu family, and the defendants had a right by survivorship to the watan property even apart from the right of maintenance. These defendants were held to be watandars though it is clear that they could not claim to have an hereditary interest in the hereditary office itself. It seems to me that the view which was accepted in Kadappa's case is more in consonance with the definition of the word "watandar" as explained by the additions made to it and with the scheme of the Watan Act itself.