G. C. BHARUKA, J. ( 1 ) THE three petitioners seems to be terribly upset with the grant of occupancy rights in favour of the 3rd respondent-fakeerawwa who is none other than the own sister of the mother of the present petitioners. There appears to have litigation between the parties to acquire at least half share in the properties, which has been succeeded by fakeerawwa as the sole legatee under the registered will executed in her favour by her mother hanumawa on 28-5-1984. ( 2 ) IT is a matter of record that land bearing sy. No. 96/3a measuring5 acres 25 guntas of sattoor village, dharwad taluk, is a devastana nirandara land and this was granted by the government to the then vahivatdar, i. e. , one poojari maribasya who happens to be the adopted son of poojari lankya by an order dated 12-3-1851 in No. 24/71-72. Subsequently, after the death of poojari maribasya, the name of hanumawwa, his daughter has been entered in the year 1918-1919 as the inamdar, in the inam 'b' register and the said land was covered by the Provisions of the Karnataka certain inams abolition act. These facts are placed on record by the tahsildar of dharwad taluk who has also produced the relevant inam register in support of the same. ( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY, the said hanumawwa as inamdar was in personal cultivation of the lands as on 1-3-1974, which is the appointed date for the purpose of grant of occupancy rights in respect of the Karnataka certain inams abolition Act, 1977 (in short, the inams act' ). Pursuant to Section 4 of the inams Act, the land is vested in the government, but as provided under Section 5 thereof, right was reserved to various category of persons, including the inamdars, who were in personal cultivation of the land on the appointed date to claim occupancy right in respect thereof, provided an application in form I was filed by him/her on or before 31-3-1991. ( 4 ) IT is also seen from the records that though the said hanumawwa was cultivating the land as an inamdar on the appointed date, she died on 13-10-1988 and that she herself had not filed any application in the prescribed form claiming the occupancy right of the land in question. ( 4 ) IT is also seen from the records that though the said hanumawwa was cultivating the land as an inamdar on the appointed date, she died on 13-10-1988 and that she herself had not filed any application in the prescribed form claiming the occupancy right of the land in question. But as seen from the records, her daughter fakeerawwa (r3) who was residing with her, was jointly cultivating the land and that hanumawwa had executed a registered will bequeathing all the rights, titles and interests in the land in her favour. On the strength of the said will, fakeerawwa (r3) filed applications in form 1 on 10-3-1991 and 25-3-1991, claiming occupancy right in respect of the lands in question. The land tribunal, by the impugned order dated 24-2-1997 (Annexure-G) acceded to her prayer. ( 5 ) BEFORE coming to the ground of challenge taken on behalf of the petitioners for invalidating the impugned order of the tribunal, it may be worthwhile to mention here that out of the three petitioners, who are own sisters, two of them, namely, basawwa and gangawwa (petitioners 1 and 2) had filed a suit being original suit No. 6 of 1991 before the additional civil judge, dharwad for a declaration that the will executed in favour of fakeerawwa (respondent 3) is ab initio void and also for partition and separate possession of the lands in respect of their shares, but later they have filed an application in the suit under order xxiii, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure accompanying with an affidavit for withdrawal of the suit. Accordingly the suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 6-1-1993. At the time of withdrawal no permission was sought for refiling of the suit for the aforesaid reliefs and thus the issues sought to be raised therein became non-justice able any further. In the affidavit filed along with the application for withdrawal of the suit, the plaintiffs had clearly admitted that the will executed by hanumawwa in favour of respondent 3 was genuine. It further appears that despite the said facts, the petitioners have filed another suit original suit No. 199 of 1997 in the court of the civil judge, senior division, dharwad seeking for the same relief which they had claimed in original suit No. 6 of 1991, the said suit original suit No. 199 of 1997 is said to be pending for disposal. But in my opinion, the pendency of original suit No. 199 of 1997 is not very relevant for the purpose of deciding the questions raised therein. ( 6 ) MS. Sona vakkund, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has challenged the impugned order primarily only on one ground. Her submission is that keeping in view of the definition of the word "inamdar" as set out in clause (f) of Section 3 of the Karnataka certain inams abolition Act, 1977, hanumawwa, who was the inamdar as on the appointed date could not have executed the will in favour of respondent 3, thereby permitting testamentary succession at the cost of petitioners interest in the lands. According to her, as held by a division bench of this court in timmakka kom venkanna naik v land tribunal and others , as a tenant under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act cannot will away his interest or portion thereof, so also an inamdar under the inams act cannot do so. Her further submission is that if that be taken to be the law, then the petitioners being the daughters of lakshmawwa will be entitled to half share in the lands in question. ( 7 ) I find it difficult to accept the submission advanced by ms. Sonavakkund, since according to me, the legislative scheme under the Land Reforms Act is quite different from the one contained in the inams abolition act. No doubt, all inams to which the act is applicable as per Section 2 vested in the government pursuant to the Provisions contained in Section 4. But under Section 4 and Section 5 rights have been conferred on certain classes of persons to be registered as occupants. Sub-section (3) of Section 5, which is relevant for our purpose and read thus:"section 5. right to be registered as occupants. save as otherwise provided in this Act, with effect from and or the appointed date. (1) and (2) omitted as unnecessary, (3) every inamdar including the holder of a minor inam, shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant of all lands he was personally cultivating immediately before the said date". ( 8 ) A careful reading of the above Provisions of Section 5 (3) shows that every inamdar who was personally cultivating the lands immediately prior to the appointed date was entitled to be registered as an occupant of the lands. ( 8 ) A careful reading of the above Provisions of Section 5 (3) shows that every inamdar who was personally cultivating the lands immediately prior to the appointed date was entitled to be registered as an occupant of the lands. Clause (f) of Section 3 of the act defines 'inamdar' to mean, successors in, interest as well. Successor in interest will necessarily mean a person deriving interest in a property either through testamentory or intestate succession. It cannot be disputed that succession to an interest can be created either by executing a will in favour of a legatee or in the absence thereof it has to be ascertained by the Rule of intestate succession governed by statutory or personal law. Under the inams Act, there is no bar either express or implied prohibiting creation of succession by executing a will. Therefore, it was quite permissible for an inamdar to will away his right and interest in the land by executing a will. So far as the division bench decision of this court in timmakka kom venkanna naik's case, supra, is concerned, that has been rendered keeping in view the various prohibitions contained in the Land Reforms Act but there are ho corresponding Provisions similar to that in the inam abolition act. Therefore, in my opinion, the said decision has no bearing on the question involved herein. ( 9 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, i do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly the present writ petition is dismissed but without any order as to costs. ( 10 ) WRIT petition is dismissed but without any order as to costs. --- *** --- .