GOURISHANKAR Vs. DEBIPRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JACKSON , A.J.C. 1. This is an 'application for revision bf an order passed by the District Judge, Jubbulpore, on an application made to,him under Section 192, Succession Act. He has held that two persons, Dwarka-prasad and Jagdishprasad were entitled to possession of the property of one Shamlal on the death of Shamlal's daughter Dropadi Bai. The applicant claims to be the next reversioner to Dropadi Bid along with the two persons mentioned. His claim to possession has, however, been rejected by the learned District Judge because of a compromise entered into by the applicant in litigation between him and Dropadi Bai and others. It is argued on behalf of the applicant that this compromise amounted to a transfer of his reversionary rights and was invalid under Section 6 (a), T.P. Act, Rulings of the Privy Council both for and against this decision have been cited.

(2.) THERE is, I think a clear distinction between the two sets of rulings; but I do not propose to state my conclusion as to whether the compromise affects the applicant's rights, as I consider that there are three other grounds on which I must reject this application for revision.

(3.) IN the third place, it appears to me that Section 209, Succession Act, is a bar to revision. That section lays down that the decision of a District Judge in a summary proceeding under part 7 of the Act shall have no other effect than that of settling the actual possession but for that purpose shall be final and shall not be subject to any appeal or review. Act 19 of 1841, which has been repealed by the Succession Act of 1925, had similar wording and has been held in Khaja Kutubuddin v. Khaja Faisuddin [1906] 2 N.L.R. 72 not to permit revision. That is a view with which I agree. It seems to me to have been the intention of the legislature that any person aggrieved by an order passed in a summary proceeding under part 7, Succession Act, should seek his remedy by a suit and 'not by an application for revision. In Sato Koer v. Gopal Sahu [1907] 34 Cal. 929 a decision relied upon by the applicant, there is a finding that the Act did not apply in that particular case; and the decision cannot therefore be authority for holding that revision is possible. I dismiss the application with costs. I fix pleader's fee at Rs. 15.