(1.) THE points to be decided in this case arise in this way: One Nath Dass died in the year 1853 leaving a son, Ramnath Dass, who died in the year 1855; and Ramnath Dass left two sons, Mosaheb and Chooman. The Rajah of Ramnugger, as he has been called in the argument,--that is to say, the guardian of the infant Rajah of Ramnugger--brought three suits in the year 1862 in respect of rent due from members of the family of Mosaheb and Chooman. In the first suit the judgment was given on the 22nd of March, 1862, and it seems that the Plaintiff in that suit sued the widow of Nath Dass and the widow of Ramnath Dass as guardians of two young men who are assumed to be Mosaheb and Chooman under other names. The claim was for the recovery of rent, about Rs. 3000 odd, which amounted to about Rs. 8000 with interest and costs, and the statement is that Nath Dass and Ramnath Dass took a lease of a certain mouzah Rudarpore, and that the rent accrued in respect of that mouzah. Then it is ordered " that this decree will not be executed against the person and self-acquired property of the judgment-debtors, but it will be executed against the property left by the deceased leaseholders."
(2.) UPON this judgment execution was issued against a certain mouzah Muddunpore, which appears to have been bought in the year 1847 in the name of Ramnath Dass. Whether it was bought by Ramnath Dass for himself and separately, or as a member of the joint family, is a question to be hereafter discussed.
(3.) IT is necessary in the first place to advert to what was the main contention in the case. It was contended on the pail of the Plaintiff that the family of Nath and Ramnath became separate about the year 1839. It was alleged that at that time there was a quarrel between Ramnath Dass and his father, and that they ceased to be joint in food. But on the part of the Plaintiff there was scarcely any evidence of separation of estate; in fact, on his own case, there was some evidence that there was no separation in estate, and that Ramnath Dass acquired no separate property. The first Court held that the separation had been proved, and that mouzah Muddunpore was bought by Ramnath Dass for himself and with his own property, although it certainly does not appear, according to the evidence of the Plaintiff, how he could have obtained the funds for purchasing it. The High Court reversed the decision on this point of the Lower Court, and came to the conclusion that the family was joint and had never separated; and their Lordships agree with the High Court.