VAIDIALINOAM C.A.,J.

(1) THIS appeal, by special leave, by defendants 1 to 4, is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 11/09/1961, of the Mysore High court in S. A. (B) No. 43 of 1956, confirming the decrees of the two subordinate courts granting a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.

(2) THE respondent instituted suit No. 1 of 1945, before the Second Class Sub-Judge at Chinchali, for recovery of possession of the suit lands. According to the plaintiff, the lands are Patilkiwatan Inam lands and he has been registered as Nawa Wala by Order No. 68, dated 30/03/1927, of the Revenue Authorities of the then Kolhapur State. The suit properties had gone in partition to one Maya Gouda, a member of the Patil family. Maya Gouda died about 35 or 40 years ago and his widow Jakkawwa was in possession of the lands till the date of her death on 16/08/1943. The plaintiffs further case was that though Mays Gouda and Jakkawwa had a daughter Bayabai, the 7th defendant in the suit, the latter could not inherit the Inam properties under the law obtaining in Kolhapur State. Therefore the line of Maya Gouda has become extinct and the plaintiff, as Nawa Wala is entitled to get possession of the properties as per the Wat Hukum No. 26 of Fasli, 1323.

(3) DEFENDANTS 1 to 4, the appellants herein, contested the claim of the plaintiff on various grounds. They pleaded that the plaintiff was not the senior-most member of the senior branch of the family to which Maya Gouda belonged and that thay were the nearest reversioners, under Hindu law, to the properties of Maya Gouda. They further pleaded that there was no extinction of the line of Maya Gouda as he had left a daughter, the 7th defendant, behind him. They also claimed title by adverse possession.

(4) THE trial court, by its judgment and decree, dated 10/02/1949, negatived the plea of adverse possession raised by the appellants. It further held that the expression Nashtamsha in the relevant Wat Hukum means that there is no direct male descendant to inherit the pro- perties of the deceased. For this proposition, the trial court relied upon a judgment of the Kolhapur High court in S. A. No. 210 of 1947. On this interpretation it held that the line of Maya Gouda had become extinct with regard to the Inam lands according to law, as the 7th defendant, the daughter, could not inherit the properties. The Trial court further held that the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 4 and the deceased Maya Gouqa, were members of one and the same family and that this fact had been admitted by both the parties. In the end the Trial court decreed the claim of the plaintiff to get possession of the suit properties and passed a decree to that effect against the defendants.

(5) DEFENDANTS 1 to 4 filed an appeal before the District Judge, Kolhapur, which appeal was later transferred to the District Judge, Belgaum, in view of the merger of Kolhapur State with Bombay. The said appeal. No. 403 of 1949, was disposed of by the Second Extra Assistant Judge, Belgaum, by his decree and judgment, dated 24/03/1952. The Assistant Judge was of the view that the suit will have to be remanded for fresh consideration and for this purpose certain issues were framed and parties given opportunity to adduce further evidence. The plaintiff challenged this order of remand, passed by the Assistant Judge, before the High court of Bombay. The Bombay High court, by its judgment, dated 21/07/1953 set aside the remand order passed by the Assistant Judge of Belgaum and directed the District court to dispose of the appeal according to law. The Assistant Judge of Belgaum, by his judgment, dated 29/01/1954, disposed of C. A. 403 of 1949, confirming the decree and judgment of the Trial court. The learned Judge held that the plaintiff had been registered as the Nawa Wala of the branch of the family consisting of himself, the defendants and the deceased Maya Gouda and Jakkawwa with resp