JOTINDRA MOHUN LAHIRI Vs. GURU PROSUNNO LAHIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against two decrees of the High Court of Bengal dated the 17 July 1900, overruling a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Rungpore of the 25 May 1898. The suit was for contribution in respect of a decree, under which all parties to the present suit and all parties to the present appeal (or those whose interests they represent) were liable as judgment-debtors; the plaintiff's case being that he had paid a larger amount towards the satisfaction of that decree than properly fell to his share as between him and his co-debtors.

(2.) The proceedings now before their Lordships are a stage, and. it is to be feared not the final stage, in a tedious and complicated course of litigation between the various persons from time to time interested in the estate of Karaibari, and between the several branches of a family, which owes its origin to one Rama Nath Lahiri, who was at one time the principal sharer in that estate. The present suit is so far connected with the earlier transactions that, although the decree, in respect of which contribution is claimed, was in its final form only settled in 1882, it is necessary, in order to understand the points raised upon this appeal, to go back to a much older story. But for the present purpose the merest outline of that story will be sufficient.

(3.) In 1826 Rama Nath Lahiri was the owner and in possession of a 12-anna share of the estate of Karaibari, the remaining four-anna share being the property of one Kali Chunder Lahiri. Rama Nath had five sons and a wife (their mother), and he then executed a document of the nature of a family settlement, by which he reserved to himself and his wife a three- anna share of estate, and gave 3 annas to the eldest son and 2 annas 10 gundahs to each, of the four other sons. Rama Nath died in 1831, and after his death, instead of his five sons succeeding to the estate in equal shares under the ordinary law of inheritance, the widow remained in the enjoyment of 3 annas, while the sons continued to hold the unequal shares assigned to them by the settlement of 1826; and so things continued till the death of the widow in 1849. At that time the four elder sons were dead, of whom the first, second, and third were represented by female heirs, and the fourth by his son Nilkamal; the fifth son, Shibnath, was living. The three-anna share hitherto enjoyed by the widow was then divided equally between Nilkamal and Shibnath. This, of course, effected a change in the proportionate interests of the several members of the family; and so far as the matter can be traced with certainty, it cannot be said that there was any further alteration of the shares then fixed, until after the year 1854, a year which forms an important date in this case.