NARAYANA PAI, CJ. ( 1 ) PETITIONERS Shivaramiah, Parvathamma and Nagarathamma were inamdars in respet of a village called Halthi. The Inams stood abolished under the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954. ( 2 ) THE total extent of land in respect of which disputes arose regarding registration was 27 acres, out of which 17 acres were in possession of 34 tenants. ( 3 ) ON the footing that there had been a partition between them about 20 years before the abolition of Inams or the enquiry after its abolition each one of the petitioners made a separate application for registration of one-third of the land in possession of each one of the 34 tenants. Each one of the 34 tenants also made his own application for registration of the land under his or her cultivation. The said procedure was the one obliged by the rules which require that every individual should make his own application for registration. ( 4 ) IN the first instance, there appears to have been an order in favour of the Inamdars which was set aside on appeal and the matter remanded back to the Special Deputy Commissioner, Inams Abolition. On a second hearing after the remand, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the claims of the petitioners for registration and accepted those of the tenants. ( 5 ) THEREUPON, the petitioners filed 35 appeals before the Mysore revenue Appellate Tribunal, one of which Appeal No. 288 of 1967 is directed against the rejection of the petitioner's claim and each one of the other 34 appeals is directed against the acceptance of the claim for registration of each one of the 34 tenants. ( 6 ) TWO preliminary objections were raised on behalf of the tenants before the Appellate Tribunal, one of limitation and the other that the rejection of the claims of the three petitioners as Inamdars could not have been the subject of a single appeal in Appeal No. 288/67 by the three of them but that they should have filed three different appeals arising out of three different applications made by them, as required by the rules. ( 7 ) THE Appellate Tribunal accepted both the objections and dismissed all the appeals by a common order. Against these, this single Civil petition has been filed. ( 7 ) THE Appellate Tribunal accepted both the objections and dismissed all the appeals by a common order. Against these, this single Civil petition has been filed. ( 8 ) SO far as the alleged bar of limitation is concerned, the appellants in each of their memoranda of appeal set out : "this appeal is in time as it is filed within 30 days from the date of the order of the Court below excluding the time taken for obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order. " there was no separate application for condonation of delay. ( 9 ) THE Tribunal dealt with the question of limitation in paragraph 4 of its order. Therein it is stated that the order appealed from was passed on 23-8-1966 and the appeals were presented on 15-10-1966, i. e. 53 days after the date of the order, whereas S. 28 of the Inams Abolition Act requires that appeals should be filed within 30 days from the date of the decision appealed from. The Tribunal did not record any finding whether after deducting the time taken for securing certified copies of the order, the appeals would be within time. It dismissed all the appeals on the mere ground that there is no application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit for claiming deduction of the time spent in obtaining the certified copy of the order. ( 10 ) IT appears to us that the disposal of the question of limitation that way is not in accordance with law. S. 28 (1) of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act reads as follows :" Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Deputy Commissioner under S. 10 or 11, may within thirty days from the date of the decision, or such further time as the prescribed authority may for sufficient cause allow, appeal to the prescribed authority and its decision shall be final. " ( 11 ) THE latter part of the section says that even though thirty days have expired, the appeal may be filed within such further time as the appellate authority may for sufficient cause allow. Now under the Rules of the tribunal, it is obligatory to produce at least one certified copy of the order appealed from (Vide Rule 7 (3) of the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal rules, 1967 ). Now under the Rules of the tribunal, it is obligatory to produce at least one certified copy of the order appealed from (Vide Rule 7 (3) of the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal rules, 1967 ). ( 12 ) WHEN the Tribunal therefore requires by its rules that a certified copy should be produced, then it necessarily means, in our opinion, that it allows such further time beyond thirty days as may be necessary for securing the certified copy Even otherwise, the rule would furnish sufficient cause for taking such extra time as may be necessary for obtaining certified copy of the order appealed from. ( 13 ) THE Tribunal, therefore, is bound to deduct the time required for obtaining a certified copy of the order before deciding whether an appeal nas been filed within time or not. ( 14 ) SO far as the necessity of filing additional appeals is concerned, the argument is confined to appeal No. 288 of 1967 filed by the three petitioners as Inamdars against the order rejecting their claims for registration, so far as the other 34 appeals are concerned, there is no contention that there should be more than one appeal. Indeed no such contention can be raised because all those appeals arise out of the orders which must be related to the applications by each individual tenant for registration in which all the three Inamdars were impeded as respondents. In such a case, there cannot be any objection to the three respondents joining together in filing a single appeal againsl the order secured by the applicant tenant to the extent it is adverse to each one of them. ( 15 ) SO far as the appeal by the petitioners directed against the rejection of the petitioners' claim as Inamdars is concerned, it is quite clear from the facts as well as the necessity under the rules for each person to make a separate application that the three petitioners have throughout regarded themselves as having distinct and separate interests in the lands and that they had not asked for joint registration in the names of all the three of them. ( 16 ) ALTHOUGH their claims were rejected by the same order which was common to their application and to the applications of the tenants containing the reasoning of the Deputy Commissioner, so far as the operative or what may be regarded as decretal portions are concerned, the order must be regarded as the basis of the reasoning for acceptance or rejection of the claims of each one of the applicants. ( 17 ) THERE should have been, therefore, three appeals filed by three different petitioners separately. It is not, however, possible to dismiss the joint appeal as presented totally. The petitioners must be given an option to choose which one of them snail be treated as the applicant in Appeal no. 288 of 1967, and thereafter the appeal should be proceeded with as having been presented by the said person. ( 18 ) WE, therefore, set aside the order and remit the matter back to the Tribunal with a direction: (1) that they should examine whether the appeal is within time if the time requisite for obtaining a certified copy of the Deputy Commissioner's orders is deducted; and (2) register Appeal No. 288 of 1967 in such one of the appellant name as the petitioners by joint memo state before the Tribunal. If the petitioners other than the one who continues as the appellant, file separate appeals, the Tribunal will deal with them in accordance with law, after considering such objection as may be open to the respondents and may be taken by them. --- *** --- .