BASANTA KUMAR SINGHA Vs. JOGENDRA NATH SINGHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject-matter of the litigation, which has given rise to this appeal, is the estate of one Haradhan Singh, who died on the 8 January 1896, leaving two first cousins--Ram Nath, the father of the plaintiffs, and Jadu Nath, the father of the defendants. It is not disputed that the three cousins originally formed a joint Hindu family governed by the law as expounded in the Mitakshara and that they subsequently separated. The plaintiffs allege that upon the death of Haradhan his estate was inherited in equal shares by Jadu Nath and Ram Nath, and that they, as the sons of Ram Nath, are entitled to a half share of the properties. The defendants allege, on the other hand, that alter the separation there was a reunion between Haradhan and Jadu Nath, and that consequently under the Hindu law, upon the death of Haradhan, Jadu Nath, his reunited cousin, became entitled to the whole of his estate in preference to his separated cousin Ram Nath. The substantial question of law, therefore, which calls for decision is whether under the Hindu Law as laid down in the Mitakshara, there may be a valid reunion between two first cousins, who were originally joint, but had subsequently separated. The Courts below have concurrently answered this question in the negative, and the defendants have appealed to this Court.

(2.) The decision of the question whether there may be a valid reunion between two first cousins depends upon the interpretation of a passage, in the Mitakshara, Chapter II, Section 9, paragraphs 2 and 3 which has been thus translated by Colebrooke: 2. Effects, which have been divided and which are again mixed together, are termed reunited. He to whom such appertain is a reunited parcener.

(3.) That cannot take place with any person indifferently, but only with a father, a brother or a paternal uncle as Brihaspati declares. He who being once separated dwells again through affection with his father, brother or paternal uncle is termed reunited. 3. This translation is slightly inaccurate in two particulars, namely, there is no word in the original Sanskrit corresponding to the word only, and secondly the original, which is rendered "is termed reunited," literally means "is termed reunited with him." The third paragraph therefore should stand as follows: That cannot take place with any person indifferently, but with a father, brother orja paternalluncle as Brihaspati declares. "He who being once separated dwells again through affection with his father, a brother or a paternal uncle is called reunited with him. "