RAMJI BODH SHUKUL Vs. MTMANTORNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Certain partition proceedings were pending in the Court of the Assistant Collector when one of the par. ties to the proceedings, Tameshar, died. Three persons applied for the substitution of their names as his heirs. The appellants were two of them. The Assistant Collector dismissed the application of the appellants, holding that they were not the heirs of the deceased; ha substituted the name of the deceased's daughter, one of the rival applicants. An application by the appellants asking for leave to file a civil suit was summarily rejected. Appeals were preferred by the appellants to the District Judge, both from the order refusing to substitute their names as the heirs of the deceased and from the order rejecting their application for permission to file a civil suit. The presetat appeal relates to the order dismissing the application for the substitution of the names of the appellants in place of Tameshar. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that no appeal lay to him. He returned the memorandum of appeal to the appellants for presentation to the proper Court.

(2.) Treating the order of the District Judge as one returning the appeal, it is not a decree, but merely an order passed in appeal by the District Judge when hearing a revenue appeal. The learned Judge took the view that no appeal lay to him, since, as was contended for the respondent, Mt. Mantorna, the order appealed against did not fall within the purview of Section 111(i)(c), Land Revenue Act, inasmuch as the objection involving the question of proprietary title contained in the application of 23 April 1929 was not raised within the time proscribed by Section 110 of the Act. He made reference to a ruling reported in Mukhtar Ahmad V/s. Barati Lal A.I.R. 1914 Oudh 115.

(3.) The application for partition was made on 3 January 1928, The proclamation prescribed by Section 110, Lead Revenue Act, fixed 28 February 1928 for objections. It was only on 30 March 1929 that Tameshar died.