1906 (8) TMI 2

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Nathoo and his two brothers, Nathoo's other sons, Mathuradas and Lakhmidas, for the partition of that portion of Shamji's estate which fell to Nathoo's share; and by an amendment, Motibai, wife of Nathoo, was added as a party to the suit. 4. The first two questions which are raised in the issues 1 and 2 may be quickly disposed of. 5. The first issue is whether the first defendant is possessed of any ancestral property over and above that mentioned in the award referred to in the plaint; and the second issue is whether the award is not binding on the plaintiff. 6. Mr. Mankar, who appears for the plaintiff, has stated that the plaintiff is willing to accept the award. He also admits that there is some ancestral property] .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ily ceremonies, which it would have had to provide for, if it remained united. When these are set aside, an account must be taken of the entire family property in the hands of all the different members. (See Section 470 of Mayne's Hindu Law, 6th edition.) 9. I am, therefore, of opinion that the defendants 2 and 3 are entitled to have a sura sot apart from the family property sufficient to defray the expenses of those ceremonies which have not been performed in the case of each of them, the sum set apart being calculated according to the extent of the family property; and there will be a reference to the Commissioner to ascertain what sum should be so set apart, having regard to the extent of the family property. It is necessary, how .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ary to the answer of the Shastris given in Strange's Hindu Law, Volume 2, page 286, which relates to the exclusion of a nephew in a partition between brothers. The compiler of Strange's Hindu Law explains the answer of the Shastris by a reference to a passage in the Mitakshara, which expressly mentions brothers but makes no mention of brother's sons. That passage from Strange's Hindu Law appears to have been adopted as a correct statement of the law in West and Buhler at page 782, and Mr. Mankar has not been able to refer me to any authority differing from Strange, and West and Buhler on this point. The right of the plaintiff's daughter to share would seem to depend upon similar considerations to that of the plaintiff&# .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X