MALLAPPA BASAPPA DESAI versus MALLAPPA VEERABHADRAPPA DESAI AND OTHERS

Citation: [1965] 1 S.C.R. 168 · Decided: 28-08-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

MALLAPPA BASAPPA DESAI 
v. 
MALLAPPA VEERABHADRAPPA DESAI AND OTHERS 
August 28, 1964 
(P. B. GAJt~DRAGADKAR, C.J., J. c. SHAH AND N. R.AJAGOPALA 
AYYANGAR JJ.) 
Bombay R•gulation (8 of 1827). '· ?-Requirement as to possession 
by one of the £-l::.i11;i~J11s-Relevartt date. 
Where the District Court appoints an administrator to the ·Cstate of a 
deceased person under rule 9 of the Bombay Regulation Vlll ot 1827, on 
the ground that 1hc right of succession is disputed between two or more 
clairn:ints no!lc 01' vvhom h:?s taken possession of the propcny. \\·hat the 
court has to con~idcr i!; whether any of the claimants was in posse\fiion of 
the propcrl;t at the d;1tc of the c:1mmcncemcnt of the proceedings under the 
Regulation. 
Th~ proc1.:cJings n1;:y con1mencc either on an application made 
by one of the c!~imants or may be s1artcd suo nzotu by the Judge. 
In 
either case. the r~le":.int point of tin1c by reference to which the require-
ment as to r0s-scso;ion has 10 l)e judged is the date of the commencement 
of the p:oceeJing• aod '10t the date on which the order is pa<"d J 1730-F]. 
C1v1L APl'ELLATE Ju1t1smcnoN: Civil Appeal No. 553 of 
1963. 
Ap!Jeal b; 'pecial leave from the judgment and order dated 
February 27. 1963, of the Mysore High Court in Criminal Revision 
Pc:ition No. 476 of 1962. 
S. C. Agarwal, R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh, M. K. Ramamurthi, 
A. Shankar Alm and M. Veerappa, for the appellants Nos. I, 3 
and 4. 
Lily Thomas, K. Rajendra Chaudhuri and K. R. Chaudhuri. 
for respondents .Nos. 1 to 5. 
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 construction of 
rule 9 of Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827. 
Purporting to act 
under the said Rule the le1med Additional District Judge at Bija-
pur has ordered that the Dy. Commissioner of Bijapur District be 
appo'ntcd the Jdrninistrator for the management of the estate of 
deceased Kashibai Sangappa Gadigappa Desai who died on the 
1st January. 1958. 
Accordin~ ro this direction. the Adminima-
tor has to manage the estate of the qid descascd Kashibai includ-
in~ the scheduled property, both movable and immovable, until 
the right of succession is determined by a competent court of law. 
• 
168 
A 
B 
(. 
D 
E 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
-
D 
E 
G 
H 
M. B. DESAI v. M. v. DESAI (Gajendragadkar c. J.) 
169 
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 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. 
That i• how the only question wliich we have to 
decide in th_e present case is about the construction of r. 9. 
It appears that Sangappa Gadigappa Desai was the last male 
holder of the Desgat properties with which the present proceed-
ings are concerned. These properties are extensive and yield sub-
stantial income. 
On his death. his widow Kashibai came intp 
possession of the said properties. 
The appellant alleges that in 
1929 the Coilector of the district held that the appellant's father 
wa5 the nearest male reversioner to the estate left by Sangappa 
Desai. 
ln 1943, the appellant's 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 Sangappa. Even so, Kashibai continued to be 
in uninterrupted and exclusive possession of the properties until 
she died on the !st 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 Jainapur Desgat estate. This application led to 
several other applicat:ons 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. I 
filed Application No. I of 1958 under s. 192 of the Indian Succes-
sion Act, 1925, on the 8th January, 1958. 
On the same day, 
respondent No. 1 appl

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.