DEWAJI KUNBI Vs. AMRULLASHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment in this appeal will also govern the connected second appeals Nos. 36, 37, 38 and 39-B of 1926, the facts of which are, to all intents and purposes, similar.

(2.) THE facts of the case are sufficiently clear from the detailed judgments of the Additional District Judge in civil appeal Nos. 13 and 14 of 1925, in his Court and I find it unnecessary to repeat them here. Each of the defendants has now come up on second appeal against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court ordering him to give up possession of the survey number, or part of the survey number concerned as the case may be.

(3.) APART from the two cases quoted by the lower appellate Court, on which it relies for its finding that a notice from the certificated holder Syed Amrullasha alone was a valid one. I find myself in full agreement with the remarks of Mittra, A.J.C., in Second Appeal No. 408-B of 1926, decided on 17th March 1917, on this point. It is important, moreover, to remember that an estate like the present one is, in reality impartible and the persons beneficially interested in it cannot ordinarily demand more than the share of income they are entitled to. Whether or not they are entitled to revise or cancel any agreement for management, which was come to amongst themselves, is a matter I am not called upon to decide, but it is certainly not open to the present appellant, merely because some of such persons may desire that he should be retained in the land, to claim that this difference of opinion amongst the co-sharers would render invalid an ordinary act of management done by the certificated holder who has, moreover, by agreement and by long practice, been recognized as the manager of the estate. I find, myself, therefore, in full agreement with the Additional District Judge in his finding that the notices in question were valid, although signed by Syed Amrullasha alone.