A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Shrimant Dattajirao Bahirojirao Ghorpade v. Shrimant Vijaysinhrao and Another ([1960] 3 SCR 789), interpreted the nature and legal implications of Saranjam tenures, particularly in relation to maintenance grants or potgi holdings. The core of the dispute centered around whether, after the death of a potgi holder and a subsequent adoption by his widow, the adopted son could assert a right over the Saranjam land that had already been resumed and regranted by the Government to another family member. The Court examined the scope of the Saranjam Rules, the applicability of family custom regarding primogeniture, and the constitutional implications of such administrative orders. The Court held that Saranjam grants were political in nature, inherently terminable at the will of the sovereign, and thus not subject to devolution through adoption or family custom unless recognized by the State. It further ruled that such claims were barred under Section 4 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876. This judgment significantly reinforced the discretionary power of the sovereign in managing Saranjam estates and clarified the non-enforceability of customary rights where Governmental resumption and regrant were involved[1].

Keywords: Saranjam tenure, maintenance grant, primogeniture, adoption, sovereign rights, Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, potgi holder.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
Shrimant Dattajirao Bahirojirao Ghorpade v. Shrimant Vijaysinhrao and Another

ii) Case Number:
Civil Appeal No. 37 of 1960

iii) Judgement Date:
29th April, 1960

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Justice S.K. Das, Justice A.K. Sarkar, and Justice M. Hidayatullah

vi) Author:
Justice S.K. Das

vii) Citation:
[1960] 3 SCR 789

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876, Section 4
Saranjam Rules (as derived from Act XI of 1852 and Bombay Act VII of 1863)
Hindu Law of Adoption and Customary Succession

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any):
None explicitly overruled.

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
Constitutional Law, Property Law, Hindu Personal Law, Administrative Law, Revenue Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

This appeal stemmed from a long-standing dispute concerning the inheritance and control of a maintenance grant (potgi) within a recognized Saranjam tenure, following the death of a potgi holder and the subsequent adoption of a son by his widow. The Bombay Government had resumed and regranted the property to the deceased’s undivided brother, while the adopted son sought to challenge this regrant on the grounds of customary primogeniture and his status as a legal heir. The underlying issue revolved around the conflict between statutory sovereignty in managing land grants and private claims rooted in familial custom and adoption under Hindu Law. The appeal required the Court to navigate between personal succession rules, the validity of state action under the Saranjam Rules, and the jurisdictional bar under the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876[2].

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The suit arose from the Gajendragad Saranjam estate, officially recorded as Saranjam No. 91. Upon the death of the Saranjamdar, Daulatrao Bhujangarao Ghorpade, in 1932, the Bombay Government resumed the Saranjam and regranted it to his eldest son, Bhujangarao. Concurrently, it continued the maintenance grants (potgi) to the junior family members, including Babasaheb Bahirojirao Ghorpade, who held the suit properties—village Dindur and field No. 302 of Unachgeri. Babasaheb died in 1940, survived by his widow Abayabai and an undivided brother, Dattajirao (the appellant). In July 1941, Abayabai adopted Vijaysinhrao (plaintiff) without prior sanction from the Government.

Subsequently, the Government passed a resolution on 17th December 1941, regranting the potgi to the appellant and ordering an annual maintenance to Abayabai. The plaintiff challenged this regrant in civil court, asserting that, under the family’s custom of lineal primogeniture and Hindu Law, he was entitled to succeed Babasaheb’s estate. The Government and the appellant contended that Saranjam tenures were inherently non-heritable and dependent on sovereign discretion, further invoking a bar under Section 4 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876[3].

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the adoption of the plaintiff without the Government’s sanction entitled him to inherit the potgi under the rule of lineal primogeniture?

ii) Whether the Government’s order dated 17th December 1941 was valid and binding?

iii) Whether the plaintiff’s suit was barred under Section 4 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876?

iv) Whether a family custom could override sovereign discretion in Saranjam regrants?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for the Appellant submitted that:

The Saranjam system was inherently a creation of sovereign will. It allowed for resumption and regrant at the pleasure of the ruling authority. They relied on the principle that grants of this nature do not carry any proprietary or hereditary rights, and hence could not be claimed through succession unless the Government chose to recognize such succession. They emphasized that the maintenance potgi granted to Babasaheb was resumed upon his death and validly regranted to the appellant by a Government resolution. The appellant’s rights were not derived through family custom but through the direct regrant made by the State. Citing the case Daulatrao Malojirao v. Province of Bombay [(1946) 49 Bom LR 270], they reinforced the sovereign prerogative to revoke or reassign a Saranjam tenure[4].

They also argued that the adoption of the plaintiff had no legal impact on a grant already resumed and regranted, particularly since the adoption occurred without Government sanction. Further, they highlighted that the suit was barred under Section 4 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876, which expressly excludes civil court jurisdiction in cases relating to claims against Government regarding lands held as Saranjam[5].

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for the Respondent submitted that:

The properties in question were impartible and governed by the family custom of lineal primogeniture. Upon the valid adoption of the plaintiff, he acquired the status of eldest male in the senior line and, by custom, the right to succeed to Babasaheb’s estate. They argued that the Government resolution violated this custom and was therefore ultra vires.

They contended that since the custom had been historically recognized within the Ghorpade family, and there was no legislative bar on inheritance through adoption in such contexts, the adoption must be treated as having divested the appellant’s interest. The respondent further argued that the civil court was competent to determine the plaintiff’s title and that the suit was not barred under Section 4 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876, since it did not seek to set aside Government action per se but only challenged its legal consequences on civil rights[6].

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Section 4 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876 – Bars civil court jurisdiction in claims relating to Government orders over lands held as Saranjam.

ii) Saranjam Rules – Define the procedure for resumption and regrant of Saranjam estates; including Rule 2, Rule 5, and Rule 7 which regulate succession, life-estates, and maintenance rights.

iii) Principles of Hindu Adoption Law – Particularly regarding the rights of adopted sons and the applicability of customary succession.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i) The Supreme Court held that Saranjam grants are political and not proprietary, and their continuance or regrant is subject to Government discretion alone. Upon Babasaheb’s death, the potgi vested back in the State and was validly regranted to the appellant, irrespective of the later adoption by the widow.

ii) The adoption of the plaintiff could not divest the appellant’s title, especially in the absence of Government sanction. The adoption had no retrospective effect on the regrant that had already occurred.

iii) The family custom of lineal primogeniture, even if proven, could not override sovereign authority in Saranjam matters. The plaintiff’s claim failed both on customary and statutory grounds.

iv) The Court emphasized that the civil court had no jurisdiction in matters falling under Section 4 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876, as this case clearly involved a Governmental order concerning a Saranjam estate.

b. OBITER DICTA 

i) The Court observed that even if a custom exists, its enforceability cannot encroach upon a political and revocable tenure like a Saranjam. Personal laws and customs must yield to the statutory sovereignty of the State in such domains[7].

c. GUIDELINES 

The Court did not issue new guidelines, but it reinforced:

• Government can resume and regrant Saranjam lands at will;

• Adoption without Government sanction has no legal consequence in Saranjam succession;

• Civil Courts cannot adjudicate claims against Government relating to Saranjam grants;

• Customary law cannot override sovereign decisions in political land tenures.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This landmark judgment clarified the legal character of Saranjam tenures and underscored the dominion of the sovereign in managing such estates. It held that Saranjam grants are not subject to succession under Hindu Law unless expressly recognized by the State. The ruling also cemented the jurisdictional bar under the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876, thereby protecting executive decisions from judicial interference where political tenures are concerned. The judgment serves as a critical precedent in distinguishing between private rights and sovereign grants, and in demarcating the jurisdictional limits of civil courts in revenue matters.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

[1] Daulatrao Malojirao v. Province of Bombay, (1946) 49 Bom LR 270
[2] Shekh Sultan Sani v. Shekh Ajmodin, (1892) L.R. 20 I.A. 50
[3] Raghojirao v. Laxmanrao, (1912) 14 Bom LR 1226
[4] Mallappa alias Annasaheb v. Tukko Narshinha Mutalik Desai, I.L.R. [1937] Bom. 464

b. Important Statutes Referred

[5] Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876, Section 4 – Link
[6] Saranjam Rules, as framed under Bombay Act VII of 1863