Skip to content


Choonee Lall Vs. Bhimul Doss Alias Lall Baboo - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily;Property
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1877)ILR2Cal379
AppellantChoonee Lall
RespondentBhimul Doss Alias Lall Baboo
Cases ReferredKatama Natchiar v. The
Excerpt:
hindu law - inheritance--brother--nephew--mitakshara--joint undivided family. - .....property ought, in the event of a partition, to be divided between his nephew and his two brothers in equal shares.2. this point was distinctly decided by the sudder dewanny adawlut in the year 1802 in the case of duljeet singh v. sheomunook sing 1 sel. rep. 59 and mr. colebrooke was one of the judges who decided it. the same rule has been laid clown since by other authorities, and is recognized by the lords of the privy council in the case of katama natchiar v. the liajah of shivagunga 9 moore's t.a. 539 at p. 611.3. we do not find any authority conflicting expressly with those decisions; and we are, therefore, of opinion that the judgment of the lower court is right, and that this special appeal should be dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Richard Garth, C.J.

1. This case raises precisely the same question which was decided by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Delhi Parshad v. Thakur Dial I.L.R. 1 All. 105 and we feel bound, having regard to the weight of authority, to decide in accordances with that decision, that, under the circumstances stated in the case, the interest of the deceased brother in the family property ought, in the event of a partition, to be divided between his nephew and his two brothers in equal shares.

2. This point was distinctly decided by the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut in the year 1802 in the case of Duljeet Singh v. Sheomunook Sing 1 Sel. Rep. 59 and Mr. Colebrooke was one of the Judges who decided it. The same rule has been laid clown since by other authorities, and is recognized by the Lords of the Privy Council in the case of Katama Natchiar v. The liajah of Shivagunga 9 Moore's T.A. 539 at p. 611.

3. We do not find any authority conflicting expressly with those decisions; and we are, therefore, of opinion that the judgment of the Lower Court is right, and that this special appeal should be dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //