Krishnova Nayak Vs. Keshav Balkrishna

khot - khoti settlement act (bombay act i of 1880), section 8--khoti-nisbat lands--settlement officer--thal--occupancy tenants--rents payable by other tenants in absence of agreement with the khot--landlord and tenant. - indian succession act (39 of 1925), section 63: [s.b. sinha & cyriac joseph, jj] will validity - deceased, was a very wealthy person - he floated several companies - he left behind his daughters, s and j - he was suffering from various diseases including some neurological ones - for his treatment, he used to frequently visit united states of america accompanied by his wife and daughter - by reason of a will, he is said to have bequeathed 50% of his property to s and 50% to j in a letter addressed to the 1st respondent, viz., s, he is purported to have recorded that the he had given all his shares to her - will was not only unnatural but was surrounded by a large number of suspicious circumstances held, it is a fit case where the high court should have appointed a receiver and/or an administrator with suitable directions. s alone had been given exclusive powers not only to execute documents but also induct tenants......that it does not help the defendant at all, refers to it only as evidence corroborative of the defendant's statement as to the customary rate of that in respect of khoti-nisbat lands which the judgment states was left undetermined by the settlement officer in respect of the land in question. but the lower court has found that, with regard to occupancy tenancies, the settlement officer has determined the share of that to be one-third for all khatedars, other than certain specified classes, to which defendant does not belong, and section 8 of the khoti act of 1880 provides that tenants, other than occupancy tenants, shall hold their lands on the forms agreed upon between the khoti and themselves, and in the absence of such agreement shall be held liable to payment to the khot at the same rates as are paid by occupancy tenants. the plaintiff was not under the necessity of showing the award to be inapplicable as the lower courts did not make it the basis of decision, and the defendant has not objected to their decision or shown that it could operate in the absence of partition, and the rate must, therefore, be determined in accordance with section 8, i.e., in accordance with the rates fixed for occupancy tenants in wanzole.2. the decree of the lower appellate court is, therefore, amended and the plaintiff's claim to recover, for the year in suit, that at the rate of one-third is awarded in respect of the khoti-nisbat lands in wanzole. there is do dispute as to the amount of the produce held proved by exhibit 31 in the judgment of the subordinate judge against whose decision the defendant has not appealed. the defendant is to pay all costs of this appeal.