Jackson, J.@mdashIt seems to me there was really no valid defence to the plaintiffs'' suit.
2. The plaintiffs did not sue to recover, ns the Subordinate Judge supposes, a particular part of the premises in which Juggurnath, the father of Amrita and grandfather of the husband of Bimola, resided. They simply sought to establish their right to that portion of the joint family premises which descended by right to Juggurnath. They put their claim a little too high in asking for a half share of those premises when it seems they were really entitled to a fourth share, and no more. The Subordinate Judge taking a mistaken view of what, as I have just stated, the plaintiffs asked for, went on to say that they had not been in possession of the particular premises of Juggurnath, and consequently their suit was barred by limitation. It is clear that they had been residing as members of a joint family on joint premises, and on the occurrence of disputes between them and their co-sharers, they were certainly entitled to come into Court and ask to have their proper share assigned.
3. As to the exclusion of Amrita under the Hindu Law, there seems to be no ground for that, because although a widow at the time of her father''s death, still she could certainly, as the law now stands, re-marry and have issue. I think the decision of the lower Appellate Court should be set aside, and the Munsif''s decree for a fourth share restored with costs.
Glover, J.
4. I concur.
ORDER
1. We think the passage in our judgment, as to the exclusion of Amrita under the Hindu Law, there seems to be no ground for that, because although a widow at the time of her father''s death still she could certainly, as the law now stands, remarry and have issue", should be struck out but we do not think it necessary to alter the decree.
