1867. GUNGA GOBIND MUNDUL v. THE COLLEC cessful application for review, have the means of meeting the inferences to be drawn from that Book. Objection to reception of those documents here was taken and allowed; and their Lordships have exTOR OF THE cluded them from their consideration. Upon the TWENTY-FOUR whole case, however, and for the reasons already given, their Lordships are satisfied that the suit of the Collector was properly dismissed by the Zillah Court; and that this judgment, notwithstanding the fresh evidence produced, ought to have been affirmed by the High Court. PERGUNNAHS. Their Lordships wish it to be understood that this judgment leaves the subject of the liability of these lands to be assessed for jumma wholly untouched. All that they decide, is the question of proprietary right, as between the contending private owners. It may be right to observe that, in their Lordships' opinion, the provision in the Code of Procedure, which requires the Judges who admit fresh evidence on an appeal, to record their reasons, though not a condition precedent to the reception of the evidence, is yet one that ought at all times to be strictly complied with. It is a salutary provision, which operates as a check against a too easy reception of evidence at a late stage of litigation, and the statement of the reasons may inspire confidence and disarm objection. Their Lordships will humbly advise Her Majesty that the decision of the High Court be reversed with costs; and that the decision of the Civil Court, so far as it dismisses the Plaintiffs' suit with costs, be affirmed, and that this appeal be allowed with costs. MUSSUMAT CHEETHA, and after her death, her daughter, MUSSUMAT Appellant, JUSSOONDAH AND BABOO MIHEEN LALL, and after his death, his son, AJODHIA PERSHAD } Respondent.* On appeal from the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut, 16th & 17th July, 1867. Where an estate was originally an THE Appellant, Mussumat Cheetha, the Widow of Damodur Doss, was the Plaintiff, and the Respondent, Baboo Miheen Lall, son of Koonj Kishore Doss, the eldest brother of Damodur Doss, the Defendant, in the suit brought in the Zillah Court cestral, belonging to a of Mynpoorie. The object of the suit was to obtain joint and unpossession of Hurheerpore and ten other villages in the Etawah district, with mesne profits for three years, together with interest. The parties to the suit were members of a joint undivided Hindoo family. The villages in question formed part of an * Present: Members of the Judicial Committee - The Right Hon. Lord Romilly, the Right Hon. Sir James William Colvile, the Right Hon. Sir Edward Vaughan Williams, and the Right Hon. Sir Richard Torin Kindersley. Assessor-The Right Hon. Sir Lawrence Peel. divided Hin doo family, tion of law being that a the presump family once joint retains that status, who claims a share in such estate to prove that it is a divided family. The entry of the name of one member of a joint family, as Lumbadar (the party liable for the assessment of the revenue) on the Registry, being for fiscal purposes, is not per se sufficient evidence to establish the exclusive proprietary right of the party whose name is so registered, and the rights of co-partners inter se are not affected by such registration. 1867. CHEETHA v. BABOO MIHEEN LALL. estate which was inherited by three brothers named MUSSUMAT Koonj Kishore Doss, Damodur Doss, and Shama Doss, in undivided shares. The share of the third brother was subsequently divided off; and the Plaintiff claimed to succeed, in default of male issue, as the Widow of Damodur Doss, to eleven of the remaining villages, under an alleged deed of relinquishment, or sale, by which the share of Koonj Kishore Doss was alleged to have been transferred to her late husband. On the other hand, the Defendant, who had been in possession for nearly twelve years, denied that any such transfer or sale had taken place, and contended that the shares of his Father and Damodur Doss not having been divided, or exclusively vested in the latter, the Plaintiff was precluded by the Benares school of Hindoo law prevailing in the North-West Provinces from inheriting. The facts of the case were as follows: It appeared that the Zemindary to which the villages in question in the above-mentioned suit, with others, appertained, formerly belonged to Teek Chund, a Banker, residing in Etawah, and that he was the Father of three sons, named Koonj Kishore Doss, Damodur Doss, and Shama Doss, who succeeded at his death as his heirs. The estate then passed out of the family, and it appeared that two several settlements between the years 1210 Fusly (1802-3 A.D.) and 1215 Fusly (1807-8 A.D.) were made of the lands of the Zemindary with strangers as Farmers. The third settlement of this estate took place in the year 1216 Fusly (1808-9 A.D.). On the 30th of September, 1808, Damodur Doss presented a petition to the Officer in the District in which the estate was situate, stating that he had been unjustly deprived of the Zemindary, which he described as consisting of 30 Mouzahs and 11 biswas, in the Talooqua Juggra Mow, &c., in Zillah Etawah, by the native Government anterior to the British rule in India; and praying that possession in perpetuity might be granted to him of the estate, and that he might pay the Government revenue. It also appeared, that Koonj Kishore Doss, previous to the 17th of May, 1809, also made an application to the Collector in respect of seven Mouzahs, included in Talooqua Bijaolee, and forming part of those in the suit, for a separate settlement of them as proprietor, he undertaking to pay the Government revenue for the same. An Order was accordingly made by the Collector, subject to the confirmation of the Governor-General. Subsequently, Koonj Kishore Doss presented another petition respecting the same seven Mouzahs, which stated, that as the Perwannah of the Court, desiring Petitioner to file an application for the settlement of Mouzahs Bijaolee, &c., from 1218 to 1219 Fusly, on a jumma of Rs. 8,000 per annum, was received by the Petitioner, he begged to represent that Damodur Doss, his own Brother, who was the proprietor of this property, and whose name was recorded in the proceeding, would attend in Court, and submit for the Court's consideration his application and Kabooleat, &c., in due form; and the Petitioner prayed that the application of Damodur Doss might be granted, and that he might be recognized as the proprietor, to which arrangement Petitioner himself was in every way willing. Upon this petition it was ordered, that an application be received from Damodur 1867. MUSSUMAT v. BABOO MIHEEN LALL. 1867. MUSSCMAT V. BABOO MIHEEN LALL. Doss, with the concurrence and consent of the On the 2nd of September, 1810, Damodur Doss made an application for the settlement of Talooqua Bijaolee to be concluded with him as Zemindar, on a jumma of Rs. 16,000 of the currency of 45 from 1818 to 1819 Fusly; and the Petitioner agreed to and accepted the jumma proposed, clear of all expenses, such as sayer and cesses on Travellers, and abkaree revenue, excluding all villages and lands held rent free, and those relinquished in charity, as Bishun Birt and Birumpooter, and other charitable grants, without demur or objection; and stated that the estate consisted of nine villages. A settlement was accordingly made with Damodur Doss for seven villages, which were recorded in his separate name, the other seven villages having been recorded in the name of Koonj Kishore Doss. In consequence of inability to pay the arrears due for Government revenue, the fourth settlement was made with Farmers, excluding Damodur Doss as well as Koonj Kishore Doss, and the latter ceased from that time to have any further interest in any of the villages in question. The fifth settlement took place in 1225 Fusly (1817-18 A.D.), when Damodur Doss succeeded in getting the whole fourteen villages recorded in his own separate name as proprietor (eleven of which were the subject of the present suit). That settlement remained in force up to the settlement subsequently made under Ben. Reg. IX. of 1833. It appeared that the other brother, Shama Doss, made an attempt before the Collector to establish his |