( 1 ) BY this Judgment the connected First Appeal No. 88/1972 (Smt. Dinoobai v. State of M. P.) is also disposed of as identical questions arise in both these appeals. Though these 2 appeals arise out of 2 different suits by 2 sisters but the suits were consolidated and common judgment has been passed. These suits are for declaration under Section 11 (5) of the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural holdings Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to have the orders passed by the competent authority set aside.

( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that late Cowasji, who died in the year 1948, owned 718. 20 acres of lands in different villages of Murwara Tahsil of Jabalpur District. He left behind his widow Gulbai, 3 sons Timrasji, Bejanji and Dorabji and 2 daughters Dhanbai and Dinoobai. It is also not in dispute that they are Parsis and governed by the provisions contained in Chapter III of Indian Succession act, 1925. Two Revenue cases Nos. 74 (A-90 ). B-III of 63-64 (State v. T. C. Bajan Malguzari Accounts Katni) and 82 (A-90) III of 63-64 (State v. Bejonji)were started in respect of these 718-20 acres of lands by the Sub-Divisional officer, Katni, who is the competent authority appointed under the Act. After the draft statements were prepared under Section 11, objections were preferred by the 2 daughters claiming their 1/10 share in the property left behind by Cowasji. The Competent Authority by his 2 separate orders dated 133-1967 disallowed the objections holding that the 2 daughters have failed to prove that they have any interest in the property and their objections are an afterthought so as to take out some lands out of the ceiling cases. Aggrieved by these orders, the 2 daughters filed separate suits, Dinoobai filed Civil Suit No. 27-A/67 and Dhanbai filed Civil Suit No. 28-A/67. In each suit the State of M. P. , the mother, 3 brothers and the other sister were made defendants.

( 3 ) THE plaintiffs' case is that after the death of Cowasji, under Chanter III of the indian Succession Act the following persons inherited the property left behind by Cowasji to the extent shown hereunder:-

(i) Smt. Gulbai widow of Cowasji. . . 1/5 share, (ii) Timrasji s/o Cowasji. . . . 1/5 share, (iii) Bejanji s/o Cowasji. . . . 1/5 share, (iv) Dorabji s/o Cowasji. . . . 1/5 share, (v) Dhanbai d/o Cowasji. . . . 1/10 share, (vi) Dinoobai d/o Cowasji. . . . 1/10 share.

However, for better management of the lands and for making necessary improvements, with the implied con sent of all the holders, a partnership of the four holders, namely Smt. Gul bai, Timrasji, Bejanji and Dorabji, was formed and an area of 480. 74 acres was given to this partnership. The said Firm was styled as "t. C. Bejan Malguzari Account" and in addition to the four holders, shri Kaikhusroo, un cle of Cowasji, was also made a part ner on account of his experience and elderly age. It was decided that all the 5 partners would be entitled to 1/5 share in the partnership lands. So far as the remaining 237. 46 acres of lands were concerned, they continued to re main joint though nominally recorded in single or joint names of the holders. These lands were never divided by metes and bounds. Both the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/10 shares in the total area of 718. 20 acres left behind by Cowasji and their share has to be worked out of the remaining 237. 46 acres still remaining joint with the family. Each of the plaintiff is, there fore, entitled to hold 71. 82 acres of land, i. e. both together are entitled to hold 143. 64 acres of land, out of 237. 46 acres of land, but the Competent Au thority has overruled the claim of the plaintiffs. The order is contrary to law and is not based on any reason ing and is utterly superficial and, therefore, liable to be set aside.

( 4 ) THE State of M. P. alone opposed the claims in these suits, the other defendants have supported the claims of the plaintiffs. The State submitted that the suits were not maintainable being barred by Section