vYAVASTHA::DARPANA. 425
- T – .°Gadadhar saraá and Kálidás Sarmá persus Ajodhyá Rám Choudhuri. 80th October 1794.
Sudder Dewanny Adawlut Reports, vol. I. p. 6.
- Masst. Droupadi, Appellant, v. Hárádhan Sarkār and others, Respondents.
. - 轉 . . I. The appellant and Nanda Kishor Nandi (who had since been appointed guardian to the minor Bāmchānd) being dissatisfied with the decree passed by the provincial Court of Moorshedabad, appealed from it te the Court of Sudder Dewanny Adawalut. Shortly after the admission of the o appeal, the minor (Rámchánd) deceasing, Musst. Droupadí was allowed to conduct thể"appeal, as his next heir and representative. The fourth and officiating Judges (S. T. Goad and W. Dorin) before whom the appeal was heard, made the following comments on the evidence adduced : It has been established both by oral and documentary evideněřhat the estate of which the respondents claim one moiety was not acquired by Bhagatram by his own exclusive industry and his own exclusive funds. The Mehals of Háudiál, Joyāsan, and Chhattarhátí, were acquired at a time when all the four brothers (sons of Rámgopal) were living together as a joint and undivided family, and were trafficking with joint stock. This was about the year 1207 or 1208 B. S.; and at that time they were all in possession of lands as coparceners. In like manner, the three other Mehals of Chandrahátí, Băliman-gãon, and Koibakal, were purchased between the years 12ll and 1219 by means of the joint funds of the copartners. Such parts of the estate as had been purchased at public auction were afterwards reconveyed by the nominal tỏ the real purchasers. That the lands were purchased with the joint funds is clear from the evidence of the witnesses of both parties, as well as from the doeumentary evidence: especially from the will of Bhagatra'in, in which there is a distinct admission of Aimandirasm’s right of participation, as well as from the answer of the same individual in a former suit, in which the same admission is unequivocally made. It also appears that Rámkumár, the third son (of Rúmgópál) died ehildless,leaving a widow, in the year 1208 B. S., after the purchase of the Mehals Hándiál, Joyāsan, and Chhattarhátí; that in the same year Rádhámohan, the fourth son, also died childless, leaving a widow; and lastly, that Anandirám died in the same year, leaving three sons,(the respondents,) and his brother Bhagatra'in, the husband of the appellant. In the year 1222, Bhagatrám died, leaving his widow and an adopted son, Rāmchand, he, at the period of his death, living with his nephews (the respondents) as a joint and undivided family. The adopted son has since died. There surviving, of Ramgopal's family, the three sons of Anandiram, who are the respondents, the widow of Bhagatram, who is appellant, and the widows of Rasmkumar and Rodhamohan, the Judges deemed it advisable to consult the pandits as to the mode in which the estate should be distributed among these survivors. They were accordingly desired to expound the law on this point, according to the doctrine current in Bengal. The pandits replied by stating that the proper mode of distributing an estate acquired by a joint and undivided family, was to ascertain the quantity of funds and labour supplied by each individual member of the family, and to apportion the shares accordingly; but that where this fact was not to be ascertained, the rule is, that the property should be equally divided among the coparceners ; according to which rule, the three sons of Amandiram, the widow of Bhagatra'in, ownd the widows of Ramkumar and Radhámohan, were entitled to the portions"of those whom they represented respectively. After perusing the above opinion, the Judges, on the 20th of February 1821, recorded their judgment, that as it was impossible to ascertain with any degree of accuracy the quantum of labour and funds supplied by each of the brothers, it was equitable to Cases bearing on the Vyavasthā No. 121. - Case bearing on the Vyavaathás Nos. 122& 12集。
