পাতা:ব্যবস্থা-দর্পণঃ প্রথম খণ্ড.djvu/৫৯৭

VYAVASTHA'-DARPANA. 475 ά . A person, living with his half-brother as a joint and undivided family, without having come to aseparation, proceeded to a foreign country, where he held an official situation, and purchased some landed property. In this case, is the half-brother, from the circumstance of his living in copärtnership with the acquirer while the acquisition was made, entitled to any portion of the estate; if so, how will the property be shared between them?' " .. r R. Under the circumstances above stated, according to the doctrine contained in the Dayabhaga and other law books, the brother of the half blood has no title to participate in the property, from the circumstance of his continuing with the acquirer as a joint and undivided family when the acquisition was made. April 17th, 1815. Macn. H. L. vol. II. Ch. 5, Case 15 (p. 161.) - . s: ". Q. Two Hindus were living undivided in respect of food, and in joint enjoyment of the produce of their ancestral talook. One of them, by means of borrowed money, purchased some lands. In this case, is the other individual entitled to participate in the lands so purchased? R. It in this case, that one of the individuals above alluded to, while he and his co-parconer were living in the joint possession of their patrimonial real property, and jointly in respect of food, purchased some land with borrowed money; but it is not distinctly stated whether the debt was contracted, and the purchase was made, with or without the consent of the co-paroener. Supposing the transaction to have happened with the consent of the other partner, then he is entitled to participate, and must pay the debt proportionally; but, on the other hand, if he was no party to the transaction, the purchaser has an exclusive right to the property, and he is a lone bound to liquidate the debt. City Dacca. June 21st, 1810. Maen. H. L. vol. II. Ch. 5. Case 6 (pp. 151). Q. 1. Whether, by reason of the father of the appellants having messed jointly with the grandfather of the respondent, at the time he purchased the Zeminduree and built the house, but without paying any part of the cost, and without there being any joint hereditary funds, the appellants had any claiiu in law to share in the estate or house? R. 1. If the grandfather of the respondent purchased the Zemindarce singly, with the produce of his separate industry, and without any aid from funds uncestral or paternal, such Zemindaree is property exclusively his, in which no other can have a right to participate. And if he obtained a brokmottur sunud for land in his own name, (which it appears he did) no one else ean participate in it. And supposing him to have built a brick house on ancestral land, with separate funds of his own, even in that case such house would not be property in which shares might be claimed by any co-pareener he might have : co-parceners in the land would only have a claim on him for other similar land, equal to their respective shares. Such is the custom, or unwritten law. From the mere circumstance of messing conjointly, co-partnership in property does not follow. а 2: Supposing them to have a claim, ةhat oلبd bه he share of each? and whether after the lapse of thirty eight years, during which the respondent's grandfather and father had been in possession, a claim on the part of the appellants, for separate shares, was maintainable? - 恐蛇 Hತಿ the appellants been originally sittled to shares, they could have taken theID, after thirty eight years, or after any length of*time às far as the fourth in descent. ” ’ *, * * A m:ın h:us m6 title to share in acquisitions, exelusively siiado by his unseparated bruther. 7,and purchased by one co-part-ener with borrowed money, can not be claimyd by another who was not joining in the transactiqn. Property exclusively uequirud by one mam i8 not to be shared by his brethren, though messing with hi`nı.