VYAVASTHA'-IDARPANA. 415 II. Ishwar Chandra Kárfarmá and others versus Gobinda Chandra Kárfarmá and others. S. C. January 1828. Cons. H. L. pp. 74, 75. See ante, p. 23. . Joynardyan Malik and others v. Bishwandhar Mallik and others. - . I. Radha’ Charan died intestate, leaving four sons, viz. Haladhar, Bishwambhar, Gobardhan, Cuses and Joy Narayan-Gokul Chandra was another of Radha’ Charan's sons, but died in the lifetimes ಘೀ 酸 - 象 證 to عيو g * { 窗 # to so. 畿 of his father, leaving Gourpriyā his widow, and Ramdhan and Brajamohan his sons, surviving 浩 & 119. him. Haladhar survived his father,and died leaving Ram Narayan his son, and Piyari his widow. It appeared that the parties had all lived together in the same house as a joint and undivided family: and the Court having been satisfied as to the law, viz. that parties so living together are capable of acquiring separate property, and have a right to enjoy property so acquired in severalty, directed issues to try the facts, namely, whether or not the claimants of such separate property had actually acquired it by their own several essertions. to The issues were favorable to the claimants, severally ; and the result was a final decree, declaring the thfant Ram Nārāyan entitled to a house, and Company's securities to the amount of 27,000 Rupees in severalty-declaring Bishwambhar entitled to three houses and Company’s securities to the amount of 11,700 Rupees in severalty, ordering the remainder of the landed property to be sold, and decreeing that the purchase money, together with 9,000 Rupees in Company's securities, should be divided into five parts or shares; of which Bishwambhar, Ram Nārāyan, Joy Narayan, and Gobardhan should each take one share, and Brajamohan and Ramdhan should take one between them.* S. C. Cons. H. L. pp. 48–50. - II. Gadadhar Sarma versus Ajodhya Ram Choudhuri, 30th October 1794. S. D. A. R. vol. I. p. 6. See ante, pp. 181,188. PARTITION OF THE ACQUISITIONs MADE BY Using g тнв соммом sтоск. 121. The acquirer has two shares of the property acquired' by the use of the joint stockt. - ... Vyavastha , . This is reasonable; for the acquisition is made on the part of the acquirer both by the use of the common property, and by personal labour; but on the part of the rest, simply by means of the joint stock. كتفي م"
- It will be observed, that I have given this report of the case, merely for the purpose of showing how far the Supreme Court has gone in adjudicating self-acquired property, to the seteral members of a Hindu family, in all other respects joint and undividad. It was the property of Rádhá Charan, and the increase of that property, 蠶 was ordered to be equally divided among his sons, and their representatives-giving their own acquisitions to the acquirers, i.e. those of Bishwambhar to himself, and those of Haladhar to his son Rám Náráyan. Here it will bé seen that Bishwambhar, Gobardhan, and Joy Nārāyan, the surviving sons of ម្ល៉េះ Charan, each took per capita ; that Rám Néréyan the only son of Haladhart...took a share in right of his father;-and that “ ៀត់ and Brajamohan, the two sons of Gokul Chandra, took per stirpes his share between them. Sir Francis Macnaghten's Considerations on the Hindu Law. pp. 50,51. -
† W. Dá. Kra. Sang. p. 70. Coleb. Dá bhá, p. 111. Macn. H. L. vol. I. p. 52.
