* VYAvASTHA-DARPANA. - 427 distributed He property agreeably to the rule laid down by the pandits among the survivors. A final decreg was accordingly passed amending that of the court below, and awarding one share of the estats to the appellint, as widow of Bhagatra'm, one share tدو the respondents as sons of Anandiraon, and one share each to the widows of Ramkumar and Radhamohan. Both parties were ordered to account to the widows of Ramkumar and Radha mohan for the mesne profits of their shares during the period of their dispossession, and the appellant was ordered in like manner°to account to the respondents for the mesue profits of their shares. 20th February 1821. S. D. A. R. voL III. pp. 74—77. - . . - . . . . . Kripá Sindhu Pájusăź and others v. Kánstává Acha riya and others. ri.*in this case the Sudder Court, without reference to its Pandit, adjudged that where property was acquired by sắveral joint brothers, who contributed unequally the means and labour, in the acquisition, the brother who contributed most to the acquisition should by usage and Hindu law receive a larger share. 1st December 1838. S. D. A. R. vol. v. p. 385. AGushal Chakrabartti, Appellant, 6plaintif/ v. Radha nată Chakrabartti, Respondent, (de/endant.) III. From the evidence of the witnesses, and documents, it appeared that the father of the parties had not left any property at his death ; that the plaintiff and defendant had continued to live. jointly from that time till the year 1210, and had held the lands in dispute, which had been purchased, some in the name of the plaintiff, some in that of the defendant, and some in that of other persons as common parceners; that they had both earned money by acting as goma’shtahs, and in other service, and had, in common, rented sundry lands, in the interval between their father's death and the purchase of the lamds in dispute. From the tenor of the letters which had passed between the parties, during that time, it further appeared that they had acted together on terms of partnership. There were no documents to show, with any accuracy, the proportion in which the parties had contributed to the purchase of the lands in qugstion ; but it was clearly established that the proportion of the defendant was much the most considerable. employments were stated to have been, greatly the most lucrative. The plaintiff, on the other hand, had been chiefly engaged in the management of the joint lands, and in other employments, procured through his brother's means, or subordinate to him. * On a special appeal to the Sudder Dewanny Aawlut by Kushal Chakrabartti, the pandit of the Court delivered a vyavastha, reciting that, “ of lands pureliased by two brothers, living together His professional , în common without any paternal fortune, from their joint earnings, (Sadha'ra woma’rian,J each was entitled to share in proportion to what he had contributed without regard to seniority; and that where the proportionate contribution of each was not determined, there was no rule in the Hindu law by which the respective shares, to which each was entitled, could be settled.” Oil enquiry by the Court, the pandits further stated that, if it should appear that the disputed lands were acquired partly by the capital of the respondent and partly by thế labour of the appellant, in that case each would be entitled to a half share; or that if they were acquired with the
- joint labour and capital of the respondent, and of the labour only of the appellant, in this case
the respondent.was entitled to 2–3rds, and the appellarit to 1-3rd of the land. • . Upon the above opinions of the law officer, and on an equitable éonsideration of ali the eirenm stances of the case, especially the presumption arising from the evidence, that the respondent had
- s
.
- o£ £he Zillahjrid £rovincial
- with a proportionate share of the mesme profits from the date of his being ousted to the
= ۶۰ contributed chiefly the mogey by which the lands were purchased, but that the appellant gave his time and labour to the improvement of them, for the joint bencht of his brother und himself, the Court. , క్రో *and Formbelle) passed a final decree, amending the deerees ourts, and adjudging to the appellant a third portion of the lands, eriod of the secution of the deereę. . lith. June 1841. S., D. A. R. vol. 1. pp. 335—337. р t
