পাতা:ব্যবস্থা-দর্পণঃ প্রথম খণ্ড.djvu/৬০৩

VYAVASTEHA”-DARPANA.' £8). was in possession, as proved by the evidence, under the purchase made by him, for a period of 12 years prior to the institution of the suit, it cannot be heard. So much of the Principal Sudder Ameen's decree, therefore, as declares that the purchase was made with the joint funds and gives the plaintiff leave to sue de novo, must be reversed. - - A special appeal was then admitted by the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut on the application of the original plaintiff. - - ● - 哆 * The Court (present Mr. R. Bârlow) confirmed the decree of the Zillah judge. 4th January 1842. S. D. A. R. vol. VII. pp 67,68. - Katiprasaol Roy and others, Appellants versus IDigambar Ra3, Respondent. II. With respect to ll annas share of mouza Guhree, &c., situated in purgunnah Binodnagar, which formed the Zemindaree of Kishen Deb Ray, it appeared to the Court to be established that, on his death, it was held in co-partnership by his sons Kāshi Nath, Raj Chandra, and the plaintist, and, on the death of Kashi Nath and Taj Chandra by the plaintist, the defendants, and Musst. Gourmani, the widow of R. հ Chandra; and that there had been a separation of the family. Whith respect to Lot Mustole and the putnee talook Nij Guhree, of which a moiety was claimed by the respondent, as having been purchased by him in the name of Rasim Sundar Ray with money advanced from the joint funds of the family, the Court observed, that it had been established by the evidence, that these lands were purchased by Ram Sundar Ray, in his own name and in that of his servant, at a time when he was a member of an "undivided family; but, that there was no proof whatever of the fact of his having purchased them with money advanced from the joint funds of the family ; that, on the contrary, it appears the profits of these lands had been enjoyed solely and exclusively by him ; and that the whole evidence went to show that he had purchased the said lands with his own money. In order, therefore, to determine the Jaw, as eonnected with the circunstances of the case, the Court proposed the following questions to their Hindu law officers. - 1st. Is Lot Mustole and the nutnee talook Nij Guhree were purehased by Rám Sundar Rấy a member of an undivided family, with money realized from his separate industry, without aid, from the joint funds of the family, will the other members of the family be entitled to share in the said lands? w به هم 2nd Is Mussuminat Gourmani entitled to any, and what, share of the undivided ancestral estate P 3rd Has she a legal right to share the property purchased by Ram Sundar Ray, under the above mentioned circumstances? ·测 - The pandits returned the following answer —If Ram Sundar Ray purchased Lot Mustole and putnee talook Nij, Guhree, with the produce of his exclusive and separate industry, and without aid from the joint funds of the family, these lands belong exclusively to him and none of the other members of the family have a right to participate therein. Mussummat Gourmani is entitled (during her life) to one third share of the ancestral property, which, had her husband been alive, "would have fallen to him; but she has no right to participate in the acquisition of Ram Sundar Ray from his separate funds. . . * . . ; * On considering this opinion of the mandits, the Court of Sudder Dewanny Adawlut (present R. Ker and G. Oswald) determined, that the ancestral ostate of Krishna Deb Ray should be divided into three shares, whoreof Musæummat Gourmani, in right of succession to her husband