Viscount Cave :-

This appeal has been fully argued on behalf of the appellants, and all the material facts have been brought to their Lordships' notice, but in the result their Lordships see no reason to differ from the conclusion reached by the High Court at Patna.

The question raised is one of fact, and it is unnecessary to state the circumstances at length. It is sufficient to say that the title to the land in dispute must, in their Lordships' opinion, depend on the title to the bond given by Pyare Mander to Rajdhari on the 17th August, 1891. If that bond was the separate property of Rajdhari, then the land which he purchased in the suit brought by him to enforce the bond was also his separate property, and he could give a good title to the appellants. But if he held the bond on behalf of himself and his two brothers, Chintaman and Gobardhan, then he could in the circumstances of this case have no better title to the land, and the first respondent is entitled to retain the decree granted by the High Court.

Now it is plain that at the date of the bond Rajdhari and his brothers were members with their three cousins (son of their uncles) of a Mitakshara joint family, and that when in