Mukerji, Ag. C.J.
1. These two appeals arise out of similar facts and may be decided by one judgment. The appeals arise out of a suit for profits instituted by a cosharer against the lambardar. It appears that the family which consisted of an uncle and two nephews, namely, Kishan Lal and Nand Lal, nephews, and Behari Lal, uncle, each representing one of the three branches of the family, separated as a result of an award. The award is dated 1897. There were three properties, which were described as wakf property. One was handed over to one of the parties, namely, to Nand Lal Saran, and the other two villages were given, one-half each, to the other two parties, namely, Kishan Lal and Behari Lal. It was stated that each was to receive one-half of the profits and apply them himself, for purposes of the trust and Behari Lal was to be the lambardar. The learned District Judge found that this award had been acted upon and Behari Lal and after his death his son, Shambhu Nath, the defendant-respondent, paid to Krishan Lal and after him to his son Manohar Saran, his half share of profits. It was only shortly before the institution of the suit that Shambhu Nath stopped payment to Manohar Saran and this gave rise to the suit.
2. The Assistant Collector decreed the suit but the learned Judge dismissed it on the ground that the trust property could not be divided between the parties and that the fact that Manohar Saran's or his ancestor's name was recorded as one of the managers of the Dharamshala did not entitle him to bring a suit. There is nothing to prove that the Dharamshala was a public property. The treatment which it received at the hands of the arbitrators and at the hands of the parties goes to show that it is only a private trust. The trust property was divided, as is usually done in such cases, among the members of the family. It is not suggested that Nand Lal renders account to anybody. The award clearly specified that neither Behari Lal nor Kishan Lal were to render accounts to each. other.
3. We are of opinion that for the purposes of the suit for profits each of the managers should be regarded as proprietor and therefore Kishan Lal and after him Manohar Saran has a right of suit as a cosharer. In the result we allow the appeals, set aside the decrees of the Courts below and restore those of the Court of first instance. The appellant will have his costs throughout.