MALLAPPA BASAPPA DESAI versus MALLAPPA VEERABHADRAPPA DESAI AND OTHERS

MALLAPPA BASAPPA DESAI versus MALLAPPA VEERABHADRAPPA DESAI AND OTHERS

Where succession to property is disputed, and none of the claimants is in possession at the date of commencement of proceedings under Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827, Rule 9, appointment of administrator is justified. Possession obtained after commencement is irrelevant.

Parties
Appellant: Mallappa Basappa Desai; Respondents: Mallappa Veerabhadrappa Desai and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 August 1964
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Mysore High Court Judgment and Order Dated February 27, 1963
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Appointment of Administrator, Requirement of Possession, Disputed Succession, Interpretation of Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827
Succession Law Property Law Appointment of Administrator Requirement of Possession Disputed Succession Interpretation of Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mallappa Basappa Desai

Appellant

Mallappa Veerabhadrappa Desai and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Mysore High Court Judgment and Order Dated February 27, 1963

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the relevant date for judging possession under rule 9 of Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 for appointment of administrator when succession is disputed?
  2. 2 Does possession obtained after commencement of proceedings affect appointment of administrator?

Ratio Decidendi

Where succession to property is disputed, and none of the claimants is in possession at the date of commencement of proceedings under Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827, Rule 9, appointment of administrator is justified. Possession obtained after commencement is irrelevant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Appointment of administrator under Rule 9 justified