https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292236 Section 4 of the Bengal Regulation V of 1799 was construed as a distinct procedure for disputed succession among rival claimants, and its opening reference to more heirs than one was not read as limiting its operation where several persons each assert sole heirship; a case of a single heir remained governed by section 3. Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908 did not apply because the proceeding under section 4 was not an application under the Code of Civil Procedure. The District Judge was held to have jurisdiction to entertain the matter, and revision by the High Court was justified. Section 4 was not impliedly repealed by the Code of Civil Procedure or the Indian Succession Act, 1925. en-us Fri, 10 May 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Dec 2020 12:35:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292236 Section 4 of the Bengal Regulation V of 1799 was construed as a distinct procedure for disputed succession among rival claimants, and its opening reference to more heirs than one was not read as limiting its operation where several persons each assert sole heirship; a case of a single heir remained governed by section 3. Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908 did not apply because the proceeding under section 4 was not an application under the Code of Civil Procedure. The District Judge was held to have jurisdiction to entertain the matter, and revision by the High Court was justified. Section 4 was not impliedly repealed by the Code of Civil Procedure or the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 10 May 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292236