Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. After certain abortive police proceedings the contest took a regular shape, Maung Thwe being the applicant for administration and Maung Tun Pe resisting him and setting up his rival claim.

3. Much evidence was given before the District Judge, and he in the result decreed letters of administration to Maung Tun Pe, upon what ground does not appear.

4. Maung Thwe, being aggrieved by this decision, appealed to the Chief Court, which refused to hear the case upon the merits or to interfere with the order, the Judges stating that the decision as to administration would not operate as res judicata, and that it would be open to Maung Thwe to establish his right in other proceedings.

5. Thereupon the present proceedings were instituted by Maung Thwe against Maung Tun Pe as administrator, Maung Thwe setting forth his title as an adopted son and sole heir to the estate, complaining that Maung Tun Pe wrongfully refused to deliver the estate to him, and praying for a declaration that he was the sole heir and for consequential relief.

6. Maung Tun Pe put in a defence, in which he denied the plaintiff's adoption and all the other allegations in the plaintiff's claim, stated that he waa the only adopted son and heir, having been adopted in his infancy, and prayed that the suit might be dismissed.

11. The Chief Court found that Maung Thwe had not proved his adoption, and that it became therefore unnecessary to decide whether Maung Tun Pe had or had not proved his adoption, as he was in possession and the plaintiff had failed to prove a title against him.

12. From this judgment of the Chief Court Maung Thwe has appealed to His Majesty in Council.

13. Maung Tun Pe has died during the course of these proceedings, and his legal representatives are now parties to this appeal as respondents.

14. It appears to their Lordships unfortunate that the Chief Court should have failed to enquire in the rival claim of Maung Tun Pe. The previous decision of the same Court had in substance decided that when the merits of the respective claimants to the beneficial interest in the estate came to be considered, neither was to have an advantage by reason of his having previously obtained administration. And yet, in the present case, the Chief Court treated Maung Tung Pe as if he were in possession and in a position to win his case without any proof of title, upon the mere weakness of the title of the other claimant. The only way to handle the case after the previous decision was to treat the two parties as competitors, starting upon an equal footing.