The Appellate Tribunal allowed the revision applications by its order dated 5th December, 1958 and directed that the names of the respondents should be ,entered as superior holders along with the appellant.
1, 3 and 4.
C. Agarwal, R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh, M. K. Ramamurthi, A. Shankar Alva and M. Veerappa, for the appellants Nos.
2 filed Application No.
227 of the Constitution and his application was allowed, the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal was set aside and that of the Assistant Commissioner was companyfirmed.
This application led to several other applications by different persons who claimed to be entitled to succeed to the estate.
511958 under s. 192 of the Indian Succession Act.
Lily Thomas, K. Rajendra Chaudhuri and K. R. Chaudhuri, for respondents Nos.
4/1958 under rules 9 10 of the said Regulation.
On the same day, respondent No.
1 to 5.
553 of 1963.
Appeal, by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 27, 1963, of the Mysore High Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.
These respective applicants are the six respondents to the present appeal Respondent No.
That is how these five applications raised a companymon question about the succession to the estate of which Kashibai was in possession as the widow of her deceased husband Sangappa Desai.
1 filed Application No.
When this order was challenged by the appellant before the High Court under s. 115, C.P.C., the High Court held that the question as to whether the appellant was in possession, was a question of fact and the finding recorded by the learned Additional District Judge companyld number be challenged under the said section.
Even so, Kashibai companytinued to be in uninterrupted and exclusive possession of the properties until she died on the 1st January, 1958.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar C. J. The short question which this appeal raises for our decision is in relation to the companystruction of rule 9 of Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827.
Purporting to act under the said Rule the learned Additional District Judge at Bijapur has ordered that the Dy.
On the 10th February, 1958, respondent No.
In 1943, the appellants father died.
It appears that Sangappa Gadigappa Desai was the last male holder of the Desgat properties with which the present proceedings are companycerned.
On the 7th January, 1958, the appellant filed an application before the Mamlatdar praying that his name should be entered in the Record of Rights in respect of lands of the Jainapur Desgat estate.
On the 9th January, 1958, respondent No.
The appellant Mallappa Basappa Desai challenged the propriety and the validity of this order by moving the Mysore High Court in its revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Commissioner made an inventory and the ex parte order passed appointing him as such Commissioner war.
476 of 1962.
The High Court was, however, satisfied that there was numberground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge.
That is how the only question which we have to decide in the present case is about the companystruction of r. 9.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Commissioner of Bijapur District be appointed the administrator for the management of the estate of deceased Kashibai Sangappa Gadigappa Desai who died on the 1st January, 1958.
Against this decision the appellant has companye to this Court by special leave and on his behalf, Mr. Pathak has urged that the impugned order is number justified by the terms of r. 9.
The appellant alleges that in 1929 the Collector of the district held that the appellants father was the nearest male reversioner to the estate left by Sargappa Desai.
1 of 1958 under s. 192 of the Indian Succes siion Act, 1925, on the 8th January, 1958.
On the 6th February 1.958, respondent No.
These properties are extensive and yield substantial income.
The said respondents then moved the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal in its revisional jurisdiction.
Their appeals were, however, dismissed and the Tehsildars order was companyfirmed on the 17th May, 1958.
his widow Kashibai came into possession of the said properties.
2 under Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827.
6 filed a similar application No.
This decision was pronounced on the 7th December, 1959.
6/1958 under Regulation VIII of 1827.
On the 5th February, 1958, respondents 3 4 filed Application No.
That order was challenged by respondents 1 to 4 by appeals preferred before the Assistant Commissioner of Bijapur.
2 filed Application No.
On his death.
later companyfirmed.
1 applied for the appointment of a Commissioner and an ex parte order was passed appointing Mr. Managoli as the Commissioner.
The appellant then moved the Mysore High Court under Art.
In 1946 again an enquiry was held and it is alleged by the appellant that he was found to be the eldest male member of the eldest branch of the family and as such was entitled to succeed to the Desgat and other properties left by Sangappa.
