vyAvAsthA<-DARPANA 375 ssenre hia legal shars of it. Thir petition wa" complied with, and an order was issued acoordingly for the attnchment; but Rám Kánta petitioned the Superior Court to prevent the execution of this order, on the grounds that the deed of partition executed by him had not been carried into effect, that he still retained exclusive possession of his property, and that so long as he lived no one was competent to prefer a claim to any part of it, movable or immovable, ancestral or acquired. These objections appeared to the Superior Court to be founded on-law, and the Provincial Court was directed to withdraw the order of attachment. - - 娜 _ Under these circumstances, the provisions of the deed not having been carried into effect, Mr. Fombell, the second Judge of the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut, before whom the cause was first heard, was of opinion that the merits of the case could be ascertained only by a reference to the Hindu law officers "The deed of partition was therefore referred to them, and replies were required to the following questions: s 1st. Is such a deed valid according to Hindu law, whether the property specified therein was the ancestral or acquired property of Râm Kánta, the person executing the same P . - 2nd. In the event of possession not having been given of the property specified in the deed of partition, to the parties therein mentioned by Rām Kánta, and of his dying without altering or revoking the same, or making any other disposition of the property specified in it, is such deed binding on the parties therein mentioned and their heirs after the death of Râm Kānta ? 3rd. Was Rām Kántá authorised by the Hindu law, in the disposition of the property in question, to exclude one of his sons from all participation therein, and grant shares to the two-wives of the said son ? - To the above interrogatories the Pandits delivered the following answers:— - 1st. The Hindu law prescribes two rules for the distribution, by a father, among his sons, of ancestral property. The first is, to divide it into twenty parts, and having made a deduction of one twentieth for the eldest, equit shares of the residue are to be allotted to all his sons.” The second is, to make an equal distribution among all his sons, without deducting any specific share for the eldest. As the father cannot legally make an unequal distribution of ancestral property among his sons, according to his will, the deed of partition, as far as it goes to make such unequal distribution, is not valid, and is not binding on the parties therein mentioned. With respect to acquired property, the law permits a father to make an unequal distribution of his own acquisitions among his sons ; if he be desirous of giving more to one son as a tokeu of esteem on account of his good qualities, or for his support on account of a numerous family, or through compassion by reason of his incapacity, the father so doing acts lawfully ; therefore the deed of partition, as far as it relates to the acquired property, is binding on the partiః mentioned in it and their heirs, unless the deed awarding an unequal distribution was made through perturbation of mind, occasioned by disease or the like, or through irritation against any one of his sons; in which case the said deed of partition is absolutely illegal and invalid. 2nd. In the event of possession not having been given of the property specified in the deed of partition, to the parties therein mentioned by Rām Kánta, and of his dying without altering or revoking the same, or making any other disposition of the property specified in it, such deed is not binding on the parties therein mentioned aud, their heirs after the death of Râm Káñta. يو 3rd. By the Hindu law Bām Kánta was not authorised to grant shares of his property to the wives •f a living son, excluding that son from all participation, unless there should be a valid reason for that DQ&瞿U*B。 After inspecting the above opinions the second judge observed, that the answer delivered by the Pandies to the second question was conclusive as to the merits of the case, all parties having admitted that the deed of partition oxecuted by Rām Kánta had not been carried into effect during his life-time and that he had not made any other disposition of his property, and the law-officers having distinctly doclared the deed under such circumstances to be nugatory and of no avail. The second Judge therefore
- vide Parvision among brothers.
N 5
