Case: Mallappa Basappa Desai Vs. Mallappa Veerabhadrappa Desai And Others

Purporting to act under the said Rule the learned Additional District Judge at Bijapur has ordered that the Dy. Commissioner of Bijapur district be appointed the administrator for the management of the estate of deceased Kashibai Sangappa Gadigappa Desai who died on the, 1 st January, 1958. According to this direction, the Administrator has to manage the estate of the said deceased Kashibai including the scheduled property, both moveable and immovable, until the right of succession is determined by a competent court of law. 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 S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court was, however, satisfied that there was no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge. Against this decision the appellant has come to this Court by special leave; and on his behalf Mr. Pathak has urged that the impugned order is not justified by the terms of R. 9.9.2. It appears that Sangappa Gadigappa Desai was the last male holder of the Desgat properties with which the present proceedings are concerned. These properties are extensive and yield substantial income. On his death, his widow Kashibai came into possession of the said properties. 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 Sangappa Desai. In 1943, the appellants father died. 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 Sangapa. Even so, Kashibai continued to be in uninterrupted and exclusive possession of the properties until she died on the 1st January, 1958. 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 Jainaput Desgat estate. This application led several other applications by different persons who claimed to be entitled to succeed to the estate. These respective applicants are the six respondents to the present appeal. Respondent No. 1 filed Application No. 1 of 1958 under S. 192 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, on the 8th January, 1958. On the same day, respondent No. 1 applied for the appointment of a Commissioner and an ex parte order was passed appointing Mr. Managoli as the Commissioner. The Commissioner made an inventory and the ex parte order passed appointing him as such Commissioner was later confirmed. On the 9th January, 1958, respondent No. 2 filed Application No. 2 under Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827. On the 5th February, 1958, respondents 3 and 4 filed Application No. 4/ 1958 under Rules 9 to 10 of the said Regulation. On the 6th February 1958, respondent No. 2 filed Application No. 5/1958 under S.192 of the Indian Succession Act. On the 10th February, 1958, respondent No. 6 filed a similar application No. 6/1958 under Regulation VIII of 1827. That is how these five applications raised a common question about the succession to the estate of which Kashibai was in possession as the widow of her deceased husband Sangappa Desai.3. It appears that on the application made by the appellant for mutation of his name in the Record of Rights the Tehsildar made an order on the 27 February, 1958 directing that the appellants name should be shown as superior holder in respect of the lands forming part of the Desgat estate. That order was challenged by respondents 1 to 4 by appeals referred before the Assistant Commissioner of Bijapur. Their appeals were, however, dismissed and the Tehsildars order was confirmed on the 17th May, 1958. The said respondents then moved the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal in its revisional jurisdiction. 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. The appellant then moved the Mysore High Court under Art. 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 confirmed. This decision was pronounced on the 7th December, 1959.4. On the 18th January, 1960, the Additional District Judge who heard the several applications made before him by respondents 1 to 6, came to the conclusion that a case had been made out for the appointment of an Administrator to the property in question under R. 9 of the Regulation and accordingly, he made the order which is the subject-matter of the present appeal. The appellant challenged this order before the Mysore high Court, but his attempt failed. That is how he has come to this Court in appeal.5. Before dealing with the question of the construction of Rule 9, it is necessary to set out the facts found by the learned Additional District Judge in the present proceedings. He has found that there is a dispute as to the succession of the estate left by the deceased Kashibai, in fact, several persons have applied setting forth their respective class to succeed to the said estate. He has also found that there is no person amongst the parties before him who can be said to have taken possession of the estate. In other words, according to the learned Judge, a dispute exists in regard to the estate between two or more claimants and none of them has taken possession of the estate. It was urged before him on behalf of the appellant that a substantial part of the immovable property consisting of agricultural lands was in his possession, and reliance was placed in that behalf on the rent notes executed by the tenants who were cultivating the said lands. The learned Judge held that these documents had come into existence subsequent to the commencement of the proceedings before him, and so, they did not help the appellant. He also seems to have taken the view that these rent notes would be affected by lis pendens. In regard to the movables, it is not disputed that the said movable property was in the custody of the Court. A Commissioner had been appointed to make inventory of the said properties and after the inventory had been made, they were taken into the possession of the Court. On these findings, the learned Judge held that R. 9 applied, and so, he appointed an Administrator and authorised him to take charge of the properties in question.6. 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 could not be challenged under the said section. The High Court agreed with the appellants contention that the learned Additional District Judge may be in error in taking the view that the rent notes executed in favour of the appellant after the commencement of the present proceedings were affected by lis pendens; that however, according to the High Court, did not affect the position that the appellant was not in possession of the said properties at the date of the commencement of the proceedings. As we have already indicated, the mutation in favour of the appellant by the revenue authorities and the rent notes taken by him from the tenants who are in possession of the agricultural lands were all subsequent to the commencement of the present proceedings, and both the Courts below have held that the relevant date by reference to which the question about the possessions of the parties has to be decided, is the date of the commencement of the proceedings; and it is this view the correctness of which is challenged by Mr. Pathak before us.

Court's reasoning:
The proceedings may commence either on an application made by one of the claimants, or may be started suo motu by the Judge; in either case, the relevant point of time by reference to which the requirement as to possession has to be judged is the date of the commencement of the proceedings. It may be that one of the claimants may have obtained possession soon after the death of the last holder, and before the proceedings commenced under the Regulation, he would be able to show that he was in possession; but if no one was in possession at the date when the proceedings commenced, the requirements of the relevant clause of R. 9 is satisfied, because possession obtained after the commencement of the proceedings would nor make any difference. If the appellants construction is accepted, it would lead to anomalous results. Take a case where none of the claimants is in possession at the date when the District Judge makes his order, and that when the matter is taken to the High Court under S. 115, some one or the other of the claimants manages to secure possession. on the appellants construction, the High Court would have to set aside the order appointing the administrator, because at the date when the High Court is passing the order one of the claimants has secured possession. Besides, the basic idea underlying the provisions of R. 9 is to provide for a smooth, peaceful and legal devolution of the estate on the rightful owner; and so, in cases where there is a dispute as to title amongst different persons and none of these persons has been able to secure possession soon after the succession opened, R. 9 steps in and provides for the appointment of an administrator. The appointment of the administrator does not prejudice the claim of any person who has set up a title to succession. The only result of the appointment of the administrator is that the property is taken under the charge of an administrator and is managed by him pending the final decision of the question of succession to the estate by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, we are satisfied that the Courts below were right in holding that since the appellant was not in possession at the date when the present proceedings commenced and obviously there is a dispute as to the title between two or more claimants, the material requirement of R. 9 is satisfied and that justifies the appointment of an administrator.11. We have already seen that R. 2 contemplates that an executor, heir or administrator may apply for formal recognition as a measure of safety and subsequent Rules provide for the manner in which such an application should be dealt with. If the application succeeds, a certificate is issued. If the application fails, the certificate is refused. But R. 8 specifically provides that the refusal of a certificate by the Judge shall not finally determine the rights of the person whose application is refused, but it shall be competent to him to institute a suit for the purpose of establishing his claim. Rule 8 and R. 9 both make it clear that the decision recorded by the Court under the provisions of the relevant Rules is a summary decision and it does not purport to bar the jurisdiction of the civil Courts by which questions of title would be finally determined. That being so, it seems clear that under the relevant clause of R. 9, the date of possession must be the date before the proceedings commenced.