Judgement

Appeal (No. 117 of 1925) from a decree of the High Court (October 4, 1922) varying a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Thana (December 21, 1920).

The suit was instituted by the first respondent for partition of the property of a joint Hindu family of which he claimed to be a member.

The facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

Law. Rep. 54 Ind. App. 413 ( 1926- 1927) Mukund Dharman Bhoir V. Balkrishna Padmanji

195

Upon the issues framed both Courts in India found concurrently that the property, with the exception of certain part with regard to which there was no further dispute, was joint and not self-acquired property, and that there had not been, as was alleged, a partition in 1891. The sole question arising upon the appeal was as to the validity and effect of a document executed in 1907 by Padman, the plaintiffs father. He was a defendant, but died before the trial. The document, the terms of which appear more fully from the present judgment, stated that neither Padman nor his heir had any interest in the property, and that Padmans brother Mukund (the first appellant) was full owner, except as to portions given to Padman by his father and by Mukund. T