JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J. 1. The appellant brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for possession of a ¼ share of the estate left by his brother Ganga Bishun. Ganga Bishun and his brothers had partitioned their ancestral property; he was a bachelor, and at the time of his death left four of his brothers surviving. The plaintiff is one and the defendant Jwala is another. As one of these four brothers, the plaintiff claims ¼ of Ganga Bishun's estate. Jwala resisted the suit upon the ground that after the partition referred to above, Ganga Bishun had re-united with him and was up to the day of his death joint with him, and that he is entitled to succeed to Ganga Bishun's estate as an associated brother in preference to the separated brothers. There can be no doubt that if a re-union contemplated by the Hindu Law took place between Ganga Bishun and Jwala, the latter succeeded to the whole of Ganga Bishun's estate on his death. 2. The question is whether there was such a re-union. It is true, as held in Gopul Chander Daghoria v. Kenaram Daghoria, [1867] 7 W.R., 35 “that mere living together in one residence does not constitute a re-union but there must be a junction of the estate.” In this case the finding of the lower appellate court is that there was such a junction. The learned Subordinate Judge states in his judgment, “that even after partition the shares of the plaintiff and Ganga Bishun were kept joint, the two brothers collecting rents and cultivating lands jointly.” The learned Judge evidently means the defendant, and not the plaintiff and Ganga Bishun, as subsequent statements in the judgment show. He further finds that “the defendant and the deceased remained joint in residence, food and property, and that the defendant is an associated brother of the deceased.” I understand the finding to be that the defendant and the deceased were associated in estate and were in joint enjoyment of the property held by both, These findings clearly amount to a finding of a mode of re-union after partition, such as the Hindu Law contem-plates, sanctions and requires,’ Upon this finding the court below was justified in dismissing the plaintiff's claim, and I dismiss this appeal with costs.