LAWS(CAL)-1987-10-3

PRAYAG RAM BARUI Vs. RITESH KUMAR BARUI

Decided On October 30, 1987
PRAYAG RAM BARUI Appellant
V/S
RITESH KUMAR BARUI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a proceeding initiated by the respondents by an application under Section 192, Succession Act for relief against wrongful possession of the properties alleged to be inherited by them the learned District Judge has, pending determination of that proceeding, appointed a Curator for a period of three months directing him to make an inventory of the properties, to take effective steps to protect the estate and to maintain. accounts of the business. The said order has been sought to be assailed before us by the appellants both by way of appeal as well as in revision.

(2.) Part VII of the Succession Act, containing Sections 192 to 210, is intended to provide for expeditious remedy to a person claiming any property, in whole or in part, by succession, against wrongful possession of such property and Section 209 categorically provides that the decision in a proceeding under this part VII "shall be final and shall not be subject to any appeal or review". The proceedings under part VII, are obviously summary proceedings and the only effect of these proceedings would be to settle the question as to who shall remain in actual possession of the properties pending decision of a competent Court as indicated in Section 208 and the orders in such proceedings being governed by Section 209 are not appealable. If no appeal would lie against the decision in the main proceeding under Section 192, then a fortiori no appeal can lie against an interlocutory order under Section 195 appointing a Curator during the pendency of such proceeding.

(3.) Realising this position, Mr. Chakraborty, the learned Counsel for the appellants, has urged that the appellants having also filed a revisional application in the alternative, must be allowed to assail the impugned order by invoking our revisional jurisdiction. But notwithstanding all the strenuous arguments advanced by Mr. Chakraborty, we are afraid that the appellants have not been able to make out any case for our intervention in revision.