(1.) The plaintiff in this suit is the younger brother of the first defendant, and the nature of his claim is twofold.
(2.) He alleged, first, that there were certain joint family properties, of which the first defendant had been manager, and of which he now desired his share.
(3.) Secondly, that there were certain properties devoted to charitable and religious purposes, and therefore not available for division, in the management of which he was entitled to share, and for which he desired that there should be a scheme of management settled by the Court.