( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against an order of the Mysore Revenue appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in Appeal No. 1146/68 (IAB ). This appeal was heard along with another appeal Appeal No. 1296/63 (IAB) and both of them were disposed of by a common order as they related to claims in respect of one and the same land. The petitioner was the appellant in appeal No. 1146/68 (IAB ). The other appeal wa,s by the 3rd respondent herein. Since the 3rd respondent has not been able to challenge the order made in his appeal, the order in Appeal No. 1296/68 (IAB) will stand in so far as the 3rd respondent herein is concerned. The order in this Writ petition is confined to the order made in Appeal No. 1146/68 (IAB ). ( 2 ) THE material facts are these: Tyakalahalli village Doddaballapur taluk, was formerly an inam village. The said village vested in the government by virtue of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams abolition Act, 1954. Consequent upon such abolition, the Inamdar one dinshaw and the 3rd respondent herein preferred claims in respect of certain survey numbers comprised in the said village. It would appear that the Inamdar died subsequently leaving behind him a Will under which the three petitioners herein had been named as executors. The said executors came on record and prosecuted the claim of the Inamdar through a power of Attorney Holder by name Fatakia. The special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bangalore, made an order registering certain items of the lands claimed under Sec. 9 of the Mysore (Personal and miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act. He, however, refused registration with regard to S. No. 10. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioners appealed to the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in Appeal No. 1146/ 68 (IAB ). The said appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the petitioners were incompetent "to prosecute the appeal as legal representatives of the deceased Dinshaw. After coming to the said conclusion, strangely enough, the Tribunal not only dismissed the appeal of the petitioners but also cancelled the registration made by the Special Deputy commissioner in regard to the other lands. As a consequence of such cancellation, the Tribunal directed further that all these lands must be resumed to Government. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have approached this Court. As a consequence of such cancellation, the Tribunal directed further that all these lands must be resumed to Government. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have approached this Court. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the petitioners, two contentions have been urged. They are: (1) that the petitioners, being executors of the estata of the inamdar, were entitled to prosecute the petition as his legal' representatives; and (2) that the Tribunal, being the appellate authority, was not competent to interfere with the order of grant made in regard to certain other lands, when the same had not been put in issue before it. ( 4 ) ON a careful consideration of the matter, I am of the view that both the contentions of the petitioners are well founded. It is not disputed that the petitioners have been named in the Will of the Inamdar as executors and that the said Will had been probated by a competent Court. The question now is Whether they could be considered as the legal representatives of the Inamdar. In the Inams Abolition Act, there do. es not appear to be any definition of the word legal representative. In such a situation, it is reasonable to fall back upon the definition of the said expression occurring in the general law governing procedure, namely, the Code of Civil Procedure. The definition of the said expression is to be found in section 2 (11) of that Code. It reads thus : 2 (11) 'legal representative means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. " (emphasis (italics) supplied ). It is clear from the first part of the above definition that the test prescribed for determination of the question whether a person is a legal representative or not, is whether or not he represents the estate of the deceased person. In the instant case, there cannot be any doubt that the executors represent the estate for all purposes and are only accountable to the legatees and other heirs in accordance with the terms of the Will. In the instant case, there cannot be any doubt that the executors represent the estate for all purposes and are only accountable to the legatees and other heirs in accordance with the terms of the Will. In this view, it is clear that the petitioners would satisfy such a requirement the view taken by the Tribunal therefore, is clearly erroneous. ( 5 ) IT is a well recognised principle of procedure that an appellate court is concerned only with matters that have been put in issue before it in such an appeal. It is not open to it to interfere with orders which are not appealed against, unless provision to that effect has been made in the law governing the matter, by way of conferment of appellate or revisional jurisdiction. In the instant case, the petitioners are aggrieved only with the non-registration of S. No. 10. The registration in regard to the other lands could not have been in issue. It may be in the connected appeal dealt with by the Tribunal such a matter could have been raised by the appellant therein. But, when the appeal of that appellant has been dismissed, it waa not open to the Tribunal to interfere with such registration in the context of the appeal preferred by the petitioners. In holding thus, the Tribunal has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction as an appellate authority under the inams Abolition Act. Hence this conclusion also cannot be sustained. ( 6 ) IN the result, this petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The order of the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 1146/ 68 (IAB) is hereby set aside. To clarify matters, it is made clear that the order in so far as it governs the other appeal remains undisturbed. The matter, however, will stand remitted to the Tribunal for disposal of the appeal with which the petitioners are concerned in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made herein. It is further made clear that the said appeal should be disposed of only after affording a hearing to the 3rd respondent herein, who was the appellant in the connected appeal before the Tribunal. ( 7 ) IN the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .