Judgement Appeal from a decree of the High Court (Jan. 7, 1896) reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Poona (Oct. 28, 1893) which had dismissed the plaintiffs suit. The suit was brought by the first respondent against the appellant and the other members of the family to obtain partition of an inam which was conferred upon six brothers in 1762, but which had been uniformly managed from its grant until the present time by the youngest of the six brothers and his descendants. The original Court held that the property was indivisible and dismissed the suit; the High Court granted the partition. The plaint alleged as a reason for the demand the negligent and fraudulent conduct of the appellant and his unwillingness to render accounts. It claimed one-fifth share of the village of Ahire and one-fifth of a money allowance issuing out of the village of Vagaj. The appellant denied the charges of dishonesty and negligence; alleged that the management of the inam had from 3 Law. Rep. 30 Ind. App. 77 ( 1902- 1903) Vinayak Waman Joshi Rayarikar V. Gopal Hari Joshi Rayarikar 14 the first been vested in his branch of the family, and that this arrangement had been recognised by orders of Government and by family agreement. The First Court dismissed the suit, holding that no order could be made partitioning the cash allowance in any other way than was adopted at present. The money was issued in a single sum from the Government treasury, and as the Government was not a party to the suit it could not be compelled to pay direct to the shareholders. As regards the village of Ahire, he held, on an examination of all the evidence, that it was the intention of the Peishwa, the grantor of the inam, that there should be a single management, and this mode of enjoyment had been accepted and ratified by the family. He rejected the charge of dishonesty brought against the appellant as groundless. The High Court decreed partition of the village, but not of the cash allowance, remarking that as between the several parties entitled thereto no right to receive it in the first instance had been established by the appellant. Mayne, for the appellant, contended that the evidence, which consisted exclusively of undisputed documents, supported the decree of the First Court. The High Court decreed partition of the village, but not of the cash allowance, remarking that as between the several parties entitled thereto no right to receive it in the first instance had been established by the appellant. Mayne, for the appellant, contended that the evidence, which consisted exclusively of undisputed documents, supported the decree of the First Court. They shewed that the general character of the original transaction was in the nature of a religious endowment, and that the management thereof originally was or had become permanently vested in the appellants branch of the family. By the true construction of the documents, including the original grant and subsequent order, or by family custom and consent, the inams were shewn to have been impartible. The respondents did not appear. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD MACNAGHTEN. This is an appeal ex parte against a decree of the High Court of Bombay reversing the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Poona, who dismissed the plaintiffs suit. The plaintiff sued for partition of the village of Ahire. It is not disputed that he is entitled to a one-fifth share in the village; but the suit was resisted by one of the co-sharers, the present appellant, on the ground that the management of the village is vested in him and his branch of the family, and that the proper inference to be drawn from this circumstance, from the documents in evidence, and from the acts and conduct of the members of the family ever since the date of the original grant, is that the village is impartible. The village was granted in 1762-63 by the Peishwa to six brothers, who were Brahmins, in consideration of their devotion to religious worship, and the arduous services performed by the youngest brother, Chinto Vithal. The grant does not declare the property to be impartible, nor does it say anything about the management of the village, but, in fact, Chinto Vithal acted as manager, paying his brothers their share of the income. Afterwards the village was attached, but ultimately in 1800 the attachment was removed, and the Peishwa regranted or continued the inam to Chintos son. Having thus got into possession, he attempted to appropriate the whole income and refused to recognise the interest of the five elder brothers. Afterwards the village was attached, but ultimately in 1800 the attachment was removed, and the Peishwa regranted or continued the inam to Chintos son. Having thus got into possession, he attempted to appropriate the whole income and refused to recognise the interest of the five elder brothers. The representatives of the elder brothers preferred a complaint to the Peishwa, from which it appears that the brothers had then become separate. An inquiry followed, and an order was made to the effect that in future the representatives of all six brothers (the line of one brother, it may be observed, is now extinct) should receive equal shares. The management, however, was left in the hands of Chintos son, and, notwithstanding some disputes, it has ever since remained in the hands of that branch of the family. But there are two yadis, one in 1820 and one in 3 Law. Rep. 30 Ind. App. 77 ( 1902- 1903) Vinayak Waman Joshi Rayarikar V. Gopal Hari Joshi Rayarikar 15 1830, which, in their Lordships opinion, shew conclusively that it was by the consent of the other co-sharers that the management was continued in Chintos line. That was also the opinion of the High Court. The argument on behalf of the appellant rested on no solid foundation. It could not be contended that the original grant, or any document emanating from the ruling power, showed that it was intended that the inam should be impartible. The argument rather was to this effect that, although the original grant fell short of proving that the property was impartible, yet there was, so to speak, a savour of religious endowment about the Peishwas grant, and that this, taken in conjunction with the conduct of the family, the fact that, although the brothers separated, there was never any claim for the partition of this property until quite recently, and the fact that, although there were on more than one occasion disputes or complaints of mismanagement, Chintos branch held their position, Justified the inference that, either according to the true intent of the grant properly understood or by family custom gradually developed, the inam was or had become impartible. Their Lordships agree with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court that " neither. ... Their Lordships agree with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court that " neither. ... by the terms of the original grant or of the subsequent orders of the ruling power, nor by family custom, nor by adverse possession (if such there could be in a case like this) has Chintos branch of the family .... acquired a right to perpetual management of the village of Ahire, or in consequence to resist its partition." It may be worth while to refer to Adrishappa Bin Gadgiappa v. Gurushidappa Bin Gadgiappa (L. R. 7 Ind. Ap. 102.), the head-note of which is that " Deshgat watan or property held as appertaining to the office of desai is not to be assumed prima facie to be impartible. The burden of proving impartibility lies upon the desai; and on his failing to prove a special tenure, or a family or district or local custom to that effect, the ordinary law of succession applies." Their Lordships will, therefore, humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal ought to be dismissed.