Judgement Appeal from a decree of the above Court (May 4, 1906) reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Sitapur (March 24, 1905). The plaintiff Umrao Singh, the predecessor of two of the appellants, together with the first appellant, who was his mortgagee, sued on October 15, 1900, to recover possession of a third or in the alternative a sixth of certain villages mentioned in the plaint from his brother, the respondent Ratan Singh. The plaint alleged, so far as is material, that the Sherpur estate in suit belonged to Gayadin, the eldest brother of Umrao and Ratan; that Gayadin died in 1869 and was succeeded by his widow, Lochan Kuar, who died in 1896 ; and that on her death the plaintiff Umrao Singh and the defendant, Ratan Singh, each became entitled to half the estate (being two-thirds of the whole) that had been in her possession. The plaintiffs further alleged that, if Gayadin was held to have been the owner of only one-third of the estate, they were entitled to claim one-half of that third, or one-sixth of the whole. Ratan Singhs defence to this claim was that the Sherpur estate was previous to 1865 the joint property of the three brothers; that one of them, Umrao Singh, separated in 1865, obtaining one-third of the estate, and the other two, Gayadin and Ratan Singh, remained in joint possession of two-thirds of the estate; and that on the death of Gayadin, Ratan Singh became entitled to the entire two-thirds, but allowed Lochan Kuar, the widow of his brother Gayadin, to remain in possession for her life. The Subordinate Judge found as follows—" Sherpur estate was the property of the family consisting of the three brothers, of whom Ratan Singh and Umrao Singh were minors. An offence against the general disarmament order of the Government of India was committed by the family of which Gayadin was the head. A cannon was found concealed in possession of Gayadin. The estate was confiscated. The offence and the punishment inflicted were complete. Gayadin Singh through his agents rendered loyal services to the Government. I do not see how these boys Umrao Singh and Ratan Singh could have helped him in it. Even if they did, which is not proved satisfactorily, it rested with the giver of the reward to give reward in any shape and to anybody he liked. Gayadin Singh through his agents rendered loyal services to the Government. I do not see how these boys Umrao Singh and Ratan Singh could have helped him in it. Even if they did, which is not proved satisfactorily, it rested with the giver of the reward to give reward in any shape and to anybody he liked. The local authorities with the sanction of the higher authorities thought it proper to bestow a part of Sherpur estate and not the whole to Gayadin. The local authorities who awarded the estate to Gayadin clearly Laid down in their rubkar, dated 30th April, 1861, that the estate given to Gayadin was a matter of favour and not by right, as his title to the estate had already been forfeited to Government. The Judicial Commissioner, Mr. Capper, took the same view of the grant; it did not belong to the joint family, as will appear from the same judgment, nor was it so treated by him (Gayadin). There is nothing on record to shew that Gayadin constituted himself as the trustee for other members of the family." He also found that the three brothers remained joint till 1865, when Umrao separated, and that Gayadin and Ratan remained joint till the death of Gayadin in 1869, and concluded " I have found above that the property was really acquired property of Gayadin, that Ratan Singh was not joint with him in the property, and that Gayadin Singh did not bequeath his share to Ratan Singh. The plaintiff is therefore not entitled to the half of two-thirds, but to one-fourth of two-thirds. The plaintiff is entitled to the mesne profits of the share decreed to him for three years immediately before the institution of the suit; the amount of it will be determined by the Court executing the decree." Both plaintiffs and defendant appealed from this judgment, and both appeals were decided in favour of the defendant. The Court of the Judicial Commissioner found that there was no evidence of any real partition between the brothers, although it was admitted that Umrao Singh left the family house, and observed that there must have been other property liable to partition besides the Sherpur estate. The Court of the Judicial Commissioner found that there was no evidence of any real partition between the brothers, although it was admitted that Umrao Singh left the family house, and observed that there must have been other property liable to partition besides the Sherpur estate. It held that the inten tion of the grant of Sherpur to Gayadin Singh was that he should hold the lands on behalf of the family, and that the family lived in union at Khurd till about 1865 when Umrao Singh quarrelled with Gayadin, and that the Sherpur estate accordingly was the joint property of the three brothers, at least up to that date. It expressed the view that if they remained joint until the death of Gayadin Singh the plaintiffs case must fail, for on the death of Gayadin Singh his undivided interest in the property passed by survivorship to Umrao Singh and Ratan Singh, and consequently the suit was barred by limitation. Finally, it held that Ratan Singh remained joint with Gayadin Singh until the latters death, and that he thereupon became entitled by survivorship to two-thirds of the estate. Accordingly it passed decrees dismissing the suit with costs. De Gruyther, K.C., and Kenworthy Brown, for the appellants, contended that the taluq in question was the separately acquired estate of Gayadin Singh by virtue of the regrant from Government. At the annexation of Oudh Gayadin was the holder. It was included in the general confiscation of 1858 and in the following year was made the subject of a special confiscation order. Afterwards Gayadin rendered services to the Government, and thereafter the estate of Sherpur was granted by the Government to him " by way of favour and award and not in consideration of proprietary right." In 1867 Umrao Singh sued him for one-third of the estate. Gayadin died in 1869, and then Umrao agreed with his widow that he should have his one-third share and that she should hold two-thirds for her life, and afterwards that he (Umrao) and his brother Ratan should be sole proprietors. In 1881 Ratan sued the widow for one-third, and the Judicial Commissioner held in that year that Gayadins title under his regrant was an exclusive title to self-acquired estate, but declared on the basis of a proved agreement between the parties that the estate should pass on the widows death to Ratan or his heirs. In 1881 Ratan sued the widow for one-third, and the Judicial Commissioner held in that year that Gayadins title under his regrant was an exclusive title to self-acquired estate, but declared on the basis of a proved agreement between the parties that the estate should pass on the widows death to Ratan or his heirs. Umrao Singh was not a party to the suit or the agreement, and on the death of the widow Ratan took possession of the property the subject of appeal, that is, of two-thirds of the Sherpur estate. It was contended that the two-thirds belonged to Gayadin as part of his separate estate, and that on his death Umrao and Ratan were each entitled by inheritance to one-half, i.e., a third of the entire estate. If Gayadin as a member of a joint family was only entitled to one-third, then it was contended that the appellants were entitled to a moiety thereof, that is, one-sixth of the whole. Reference was made to Sykes Compendium, p. 379, appendix 13, par. 4 of the letter of October 10, 1858, scheduled to Act I. of 1869, p. 285; Maynes Hindu Law, 7th ed., p. 358, par. 286; Malka Jahan Sahiba v. Deputy Commissioner of Lucknow (( 1879) L. R. 6 Ind. Ap. 63, 73.); and Mirza Jehan Kudr v. Afsur Baku. (( 1879) L. R. 6 Ind. Ap. 76, 83.) With regard to the effect of Umraos separation in 1865, it was contended that it operated a complete partition into separate thirds, or at all events threw on the survivor Ratan the burden of shewing that he and Gayadin agreed to reunite or to remain united before he could claim by survivorship the two-thirds as joint estate to the exclusion of Umrao. Reference was made to Balabux v. Rukhmabai (( 1903) L. R. 30 Ind. Ap. 130, 137.) and Balkishen Das v. Ramnarain Sahu. (( 1903) L. R. 30 Ind. Ap. 139, 149.) As to the mode and effect of the partition of 1865 as a complete division of title, see Appovier v. Rama Subba Aiyan(( 1866) 11 Moo. Ind. Ap. 75.), Parbati v. Naunihal Singh (( 1909) L. R. 36 Ind. Ap. 71,), Joynarain Giri v. Grishchunder Myti(( 1878) L. R. 5 Ind. Ap. 228.), and Chidambaram Chettiar v. Gouri Nachiar. (( 1879) L. R. 6 Ind. Ap. Ind. Ap. 75.), Parbati v. Naunihal Singh (( 1909) L. R. 36 Ind. Ap. 71,), Joynarain Giri v. Grishchunder Myti(( 1878) L. R. 5 Ind. Ap. 228.), and Chidambaram Chettiar v. Gouri Nachiar. (( 1879) L. R. 6 Ind. Ap. 177.) It was contended that it was clearly erroneous to dismiss the suit entirely, and that the appellants were entitled to a moiety of whatever Gayadin died entitled to, whether it was to two-thirds or one-third of the entire estate. Sir R. Finlay, K.C., and Ross, for the respondent, contended that the regrant to Gayadin of the Sherpur estate, though recorded in his sole name, was not for his exclusive benefit, but enured to the benefit of the joint family represented by the three brothers. The evidence shewed that Gayadin himself so understood it and never claimed the exclusive and separate title now put forward on his behalf. The Government must have so intended, for the two brothers were minors at the time of the Mutiny and at the time of the regrant, and it could not have been the intention to punish the innocent members of the family by rewarding the guilty one at their expense. The evidence shewed as clearly as was possible after the long lapse of time that Gayadin had agreed to hold as trustee for the family, and that trust having been duly created must be enforced see Hurpurshad v. Sheo Dyal. (( 1876) L. R. 3 Ind. Ap. 259, 269.) The appellants suit was rightly dismissed. Umrao had taken his one-third on partition in 1865. Gayadin and Ratan remained joint as regards the two-thirds, the survivor being entitled to the whole thereof by survivorship unless a partition between them had been effected and was proved in this suit. There was a concurrent finding of fact that they remained joint and were so at Gayadins death. There was no presumption that Umraos separation effected a partition of title as between Gayadin and Ratan. Reference was made to Maynes Hindu Law, 7th ed., par. 495, pp. 671 and 672. There was no proof of separation between the two brothers or of any wish or intention to separate. There was no presumption that Umraos separation effected a partition of title as between Gayadin and Ratan. Reference was made to Maynes Hindu Law, 7th ed., par. 495, pp. 671 and 672. There was no proof of separation between the two brothers or of any wish or intention to separate. There must be some act or binding declaration of intention proved before division of title between the two brothers could be held to be established in such a way as to exclude Ratan Singhs right by survivorship and give to the appellants a right by inheritance see Debee Pershad v. Phool Kocree (( 1869) 8 B. L. R. 388, note; 12 S. W. R. 510.), Mookta Keshee v. Oomabutty. (( 1870) 14 S. W. R. 81 ; S. C. 8 B. L. R. 396, note) The appellants suit was rightly dismissed because no separate title was proved to vest in Gayadin either under the grant to the whole of the subject of the suit, or by virtue of a partition with Ratan to a half of it. His interest in the subject of suit was joint with the respondent, who accordingly succeeded thereto by survivorship. De Gruyther, K.C., in reply. As to the weight allowed to con current findings, especially where the issue is one of mixed law and fact, see Paulien Valloo Chetty v. Paulien Sooryah Chetty (( 1877) L. R.4lnd.Ap. 109,114.); Parbati v. Naunihal Singh. (L. R. 36 Ind. Ap. 71, 76.) As to reunion, see Maynes Hindu Law, p. 673, par. 496. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD MACNAGHTEN. This is an appeal from the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh. It seems that before the annexation of Oudh two estates, called Bohra and Sherpur, belonged to an undivided Hindu family, the members of which then were three brothers, Gayadin, Umrao, and Ratan. They were born of different mothers. Gayadin was much the eldest, and a man of about middle age. He was the manager. The other two were minors. Umrao was quite young, and Ratan at the time was a mere child. After the confiscation the Government was minded to restore the family property, and a grant of it was either issued or in immediate contemplation, when it was discovered that Gayadin was in possession of a quantity of concealed arms. The property was again confiscated, and Gayadin was put in prison. After the confiscation the Government was minded to restore the family property, and a grant of it was either issued or in immediate contemplation, when it was discovered that Gayadin was in possession of a quantity of concealed arms. The property was again confiscated, and Gayadin was put in prison. Then Gayadin or his servants made disclosure of similar offences committed by other landholders, and so induced the Government to look favourably on his case. Ultimately the Government made him a grant of Sherpur, which in value was about equal to one-third of the whole family property. The question is, Was Sherpur the self-acquired property of Gayadin, or was it the joint property of the three brothers ? Now Gayadin himself, when examined with a view to the preparation of the khewat of ilaka Sherpur, stated that he and his two brothers were "joint in equal shares," and the khewat, which is signed by Gayadin, Umrao, and Ratan (Umraos signature being affixed by Ratan), and countersigned by the presiding officer on September 24, 1860, gives under the head " Shares of Proprietors," and " Names of Zemindars," "Gayadin, Umrao Singh, and Ratan Singh, sons of Bakht Singh, all three in equal shares." Gayadin never disputed the right and title of his two brothers to a joint share in the property. It would seem, therefore, that it must be inferred that under a family arrangement, which cannot now be questioned, the three brothers became jointly entitled as members of an undivided Hindu family to the Sherpur estate, although the Government grant was to Gayadin alone. The three brothers continued to live joint until a year or a year and a half before Gayadins death, which occurred in January, 1869. In 1867 Umrao quarrelled with Gayadin, left the family home, and brought a suit for partition. Ratan, too, brought a suit for partition, claiming one-third ; but he remained with Gayadin and withdrew his claim. Umrao, on the other hand, continued his suit, making Gayadins widow a defendant, and there was a decree by consent, giving Umrao one-third of the estate. Ratan made an arrangement with the widow, who had executed a will in his favour, that she was to remain in possession, and that his rights were to be in abeyance during her life. Umrao, on the other hand, continued his suit, making Gayadins widow a defendant, and there was a decree by consent, giving Umrao one-third of the estate. Ratan made an arrangement with the widow, who had executed a will in his favour, that she was to remain in possession, and that his rights were to be in abeyance during her life. Effect was given to this agreement when Ratan afterwards claimed one-third in a suit which he brought against the widow, alleging that she was wasting the estate. Gayadins widow died in 1896. In 1900 Umrao, with the assistance of his co-plaintiff, a mortgagee, brought forward his claim, asserting that Sherpur was Gayadins self-acquired property. The Subordinate Judge of Sitapur decided in his favour; but in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner this decision was reversed, and the suit was dismissed. The judgment was delivered by Mr. Chamier, the Judicial Commissioner. " It appears to me," said the learned judge, " to be clear that Ratan Singh remained joint with Gayadin till the latters death, and then became entitled to two-thirds of the property. In my opinion the plaintiffs have altogether failed to prove that Gayadin died entitled to either two-thirds or one-third of the Sherpur estate as separate property." Their Lordships agree in that opinion, and they will, therefore, humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed. The appellants will pay the costs of the appeal.