Hallifa—It seems advisable to clear the ground by mentioning first the inaccuracy with which the extent of the various shares is described in this case. The system of annas and pies is convenient up to a certain limit, but the uneducated Indian mind is incapable of grasping the idea of anything less than a quarter of a pie, and in many cases cannot get beyond the idea of a pie.

2. That, however, is no reason why the Court should be guilty of inaccuracies which might result in substantial injustice on further sub division of the shares so improperly described. Here we are at times dealing with share of one-twentieth which in the anna pie notation should be represented by 9| pies, but almost invariably this is called 9\ pies. So also the share that is really 2 annas and If pies, in that system of notation is always called 2 annas and If pies.

In this case it will be more convenient to refer to shares in terms of vulgar fractions.

3. This appeal arises out of one of a number of suits filed by the three junior members of the Raj Gond family of Zamindars of the Shikmi Zamindari of Bhagi in the Bhandara District. The genealogical table of the family on the next page will assist comprehension of the facts: The Zemindari consisted originally of 12 villages. Ghisu and Isu alienated their half share in the two villages of Nakti and Megardhokra many years ago, and the half share in those two villages is no longer a part of the Zemindari.

In 1895 they mortgaged their half share in the remaining ten villages to one Ramdayal Marwari of Dongargarh. He eventually sued them on the mortgage, and obtained possession of their whole estate, the half share in the ten villages, in 1901.

4. In 1905 the Zemindari, therefore, consisted of a half share in each of the 12 villages originally comprised in it. Aman, Puran and Umrao being dead, a quarter of this property belonged to Aman Bapu, another quarter to the three sons of Puran and the remaining half to the four survivors, sons of Kandu.

5. It is admitted that, according to the personal law governing Raj Gonds a son has no vested interest in the family property during his father's life. So that Tularam was excluded by his father Kamani. He tried to get over this difficulty by the statement that he was the son of Umrao who was then dead, but the entire falsity of this has been established and is now admitted.

6. In December 1904 some of the members of the family applied for assistance to R. B. Anantlal, Extra Assistant Commissioner who was in charge of the Debt Conciliation Board, certain arbitrators deputed by the Government who were formally appointed by the parties in each case and acted as a sort of informal Bankruptcy Court to deal with agricultural indebtedness after the famnie. Exhaustive enquiries were made and no effort seems to have been spared to get good terms from the creditors of the Family and to rescue it from the slough of insolvency into which it had fallen and set it on its feet. Ramdayal Marwari was induced to re-convey his half share in the ten villages in consideration of getting the village of Sirpur and Rs. 6,380.

7. The amount of the decree under which he had foreclosed the half share in the ten villages was Rs. 6,313 and he also gave up his claims under a decree for Rs. 1,115, and various bonds for Rs. 2,050 against Ghisu, together with established claims for Rs. 2 422 against Aman Bapu and the sons of Puran and for Rs. 488 against the sons of Kandu.

8. Apart from these debts, the total amount of dues from the family was found to be Rs. 7,944 together with a sum of about Rs. 3,000 due for land revenue to the superior proprietor. In lieu of this the creditors were induced to accept reduced sums aggregating only Rs. 3,465.

9. Of this total debt of close on Rs. 11,000 the amount due by Aman Bapu and the three sons of Puran seems to have been not less than the Rs. 7,000. In addition there was the Rs, 2,422, their share of debt wiped off under the Sirpur arrangement. We are now conc