These revisions ought not to have been preferred by the State. Clearly the liability of the State is undisputed and without further demand the moneys could properly have been brought into Court for payment out to the petitioner. The State wants to defeat the claim on wholly unsubstantial and technical grounds that do not in the least touch the merits of the case. The lower Court has done the best to avoid manifest injustice, and got round a patently erroneous earlier order wholly devoid of jurisdiction. But the State has chosen to challenge the correctness of the lower Court’s action. So, I shall deal with the case on its merits.

Ramanatha Rao, the first respondent herein, the plaintiff in the suit, out of which these proceedings arise, filed a suit for recovery of possession of the suit properties and for mesne profits from the date of the institution of the suit. The Government had started escheat proceedings against the properties, which had been left by one Jagannathan and proceeded in the view that he left no heirs. Ramanatha Rao instituted the suit contending that himself and his brother, the second respondent in these proceedings, were heirs of the said Jagannadhan