Sir John Edge:- The suit in which these two consolidated appeals from a decree of the High Court at Allahabad have arisen was brought in the Court of the District Judge of Mainpuri in the United Provinces on the 20th May 1915. The reliefs claimed in the suit were the removal of the then trustees of an endowment for religious and charitable purposes on account of alleged misap propriation of the endowed property, and the appointment of new trustees to whom the possession of the entire endowed pro perty should be given ; that accounts should be furnished of the property of the endowment and the misappropria tions should be made good ; that a scheme for the management of the endowment should be settled ; that any other beneficial relief should be granted ; and that costs should be decreed against any of the defendants who might be found liable. The suit was brought under S. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The plaintiffs had obtained the consent in writing of the Legal Remembrancer of the United Provinces to the institution by hem of the suit, such Legal Remem brancer having been the officer appointed under S. 93 of the Act to exercise in those Provinces the powers in that respect which are conferred on the Advocate-General by S. 92. The parties to the suit are residents of Etawah in the United Provinces, and are Hindus of the Agarwal caste. The caste name is also written Aggarwall. The plaintiffs are through a common ancestor related, more or less distantly, to the defendants, and are persons who were interested in the proper manage ment of the trust properties of the endowment. The defendants are de scendants of one Sital Prasad who found ed the endowment by his will of the 24th February, 1904. The Agarwal is a well-known caste and has caste sub-divisions. The mem bers of the caste in the United Provinces and the Punjab are mainly Zamin dars, or agriculturists, or are engaged in other forms of trade. The Agarwals of the United Provinces and of the Punjab carry on their business, whatever it may be, either separately or as joint families. The mem bers of the caste in the United Provinces and the Punjab are mainly Zamin dars, or agriculturists, or are engaged in other forms of trade. The Agarwals of the United Provinces and of the Punjab carry on their business, whatever it may be, either separately or as joint families. When the business is carried on as the business of a joint family it is as a rule carried on in the name of the managing member of the joint family or in a firm name. The first of these appeals is by Lala Jai Narain, who was defendant No. 1. The other of these appeals is by Lala Prag Narain and Lala Brahma Narain who were respectively defendants 2 and 3. As there are nine defendants in the suit against all of whom a common liability is not alleged it is advisable to state at once who the different defen dants are. Sital Prasad, who founded the endowment in question, and his elder brother, Kunj Behari Lal, with their father Lala Gopi Nath, constituted a joint Hindu family, which was governed by the law of the Mitakshara. After the death of Lala Gopi Nath, the bro thers Kunj Behari Lal and Sital Prasad separated in 1900, and subsequently Kunj Behari Lal died childless. Before the endowment in question was founded Kunji Behari Lal had by his will left all his property to his eldest nephew Behari Lal. Sital Prasad had married and had sons : Banke Behari Lal, above mentioned, Girdhari Lal, Benarsi Das and Sheo Narain, defendant 8. Banke Behari Lal married and had sons Lala Jai Narain, eldest son, defendant 1, Rup Narain who died before suit leaving a son, Shyam Behari Lal, defendant 4, Lala Prag Narain defendant 2, and Lala Brahma Narain, defendant 3. Girdhari Lal, second son of Sital Prasad, married and had sons Lala Gur Narain, defendant 9, and Lachmi Narain, Banarsi Das, third son of Sital Prasad, married and had sons Lala Suraj Narain, defendant 5. Brij Narain, defen dant 6, and Keshab Narain defendant 7. Sital Prasad separated from his sons in or before 1903 and made his will of the 24th February 1904 and died on the 5th March 1904. There is evidence on which their Lordships find that Banke Bebari Lal separated from his brothers. Banke Behari Lal and his sons constitu ted a joint Hindu family. Sital Prasad separated from his sons in or before 1903 and made his will of the 24th February 1904 and died on the 5th March 1904. There is evidence on which their Lordships find that Banke Bebari Lal separated from his brothers. Banke Behari Lal and his sons constitu ted a joint Hindu family. Banks Bebari Lal and his sons carried on business under a firm name of Banke Behari Lal Jai Narain. It is not proved, nor indeed, has it been alleged, that Backe Behari Lal and his sons had ever separated, and as such a separation has not been proved the presumption in law is that they continued joint. It has not been proved that the sons of Banke Behari Lal after he died on the 5th March 1907, separated. Consequently it is to be assumed, un less the contrary has been proved, and it has not been proved, that the business which was carried on under the firm name of Banke Bebari Lal Jai Narain has continued to be the business of a joint family. At all material times Lala Jai Narain, defendant 1, was a member of that joint family, and appears to have acted as the managing member of the joint family, and he was also a member of a committee of the trustees which was appointed by the will of Sital Prasad to manage the property of the endowment created by that will. When Shyam Behari Lal, de fendant 4 was born, has not been proved but it is stated in the plaint of the 20th May 1915, that be was then about 8 years of age ; it is thus uncertain whether he became a member of the joint family be fore or after the death of his grandfather Banke Bebari Lal, but the question is not material as it appears to their Lordships. Owing to a misconception of the effect of a judgment of the Board which was delivered by Lord Davey in Balabux Ladhuram v. Rukhmabai (1903) 30 Cal 725 : 30 IA 130 : 7 CWN 642 : 5 Bom LR 469 : 8 Sar 470 (PC) it was generally, but erroneously, assumed that the Board had decided that when a Hindu governed by the law of the Mitak shara, who had sons living, separated from his brothers it was a presumption of law that he had separated from his sons and that he and his descendants ceased to constitute amongst themselves a joint family unless it was proved that they had agreed to continue to be joint Hindu family. It was pointed out, however, by the Board in a judgment which was delivered on the 22nd January, 1924, in Hari Bakhsh v. Babu Lal and another AIR 1924 PC 126 : 5 Lah 92 : 51 IA 163 : 22 ALJ 254 : 34 MLT 70 : 5 LR PC 113 : 28 CWN 953 : 20 MLW 406 : (1924) MWN 650 : 26 Bom LR 1108 (PC) that that was an erroneous conception of the effect of what Lord Davey had said, and that no authority had been brought to the attention of their Lordships for introduc ing a novel principle into the law of joint Hindu families governed by the law of the Mitakshara. In the case of Hari Bakhsh v. Babu Lal and another AIR 1924 PC 126 : 5 Lah 92 : 51 IA 163 : 22 ALJ 254 : 34 MLT 70 : 5 LR PC 113 : 28 CWN 953 : 20 MLW 406 : (1924) MWN 650 : 26 Bom LR 1108 (PC) the parties were Hindus of the Bakkal Aggar wall caste of the Punjab. In the present case the learned Judges of the High Court in appeal decided that Shyam Behari Lal defendant 4, was not liable in respect of the waqf trust fund, which was deposited by Banke Behari Lal with Banke Bebari Lal Jai Narain. Possibly, the explanation of that decision is that the learned Judges had, as others had done, misconceived the effect of the judgment which had been delivered by Lord Davey. Possibly, the explanation of that decision is that the learned Judges had, as others had done, misconceived the effect of the judgment which had been delivered by Lord Davey. In their plaint the plaintiffs alleged that Sital Prasad, who died on the 5th March, 1904, had by his will, dated the 24th February, 1904 made a waqf of his property for religious and chari table purposes ; had appointed a committee of trustees, of which his eldest son Banke Behari Lal should be president ; that after the death of Sital Prasad the whole of the waqf property was taken possession of by Banke Behari Lal; that the defendants 1, 2, 3 and Shy am Behari Lal, defendant 4, were at the date of the suit in possession of the waqf property. The defendants 1, 2, 3 and 4 jointly filed a written statement in which they did not deny or admit the statement in the plaint that the defendants 1 to 4 were, when the suit was brought, in possession of the waqf property, consequently it must be taken that that statement was not traversed and was not in issue. They alleged that the will of Sital Pra sad created a private endowment and that S. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, did not apply ; the meaning of that allega tion is that Sital Prasad's will did not create any trust for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature. They also alleged that they had been satisfactorily carrying on the management of the waqf, and they denied that there had been any misappropriation of the waqf fund and that there was any liability on them. It is not necessary to refer to the written statement of any other defendant. Sital Prasad, who was by occupation a money-lender and zamindar, made his will on the 24th February, 1904. It is not necessary to refer to the written statement of any other defendant. Sital Prasad, who was by occupation a money-lender and zamindar, made his will on the 24th February, 1904. As translated it was, so far as is material, as follows :- " I, Sital Prasad, son of Lala Gopi Nath, deceased, caste Agarwal Sahu, resident of the city of Etawah, do declare as follows :- Let it be known that under the decree of the Civil Court, dated the 16th April 1903, passed by the Subordinate Judge of the district of Mainpuri on the basis of the arbitration award, dated the 31st March 1903, the whole of my property is parti tioned as against my sons and grandsons. I enjoy full proprietary rights of every sort in respect of the said property and have no co-sharer or co-parcener therein. I, there fore, give it in writing as regards the said property that I shall remain in proprietary possession of the property during my life time, that as regards the moveable and immovable properties that might remain in my possession at the time of my death, I make a will as follows :- A committee should be formed to carry out the directions given below. The Com mittee would have all sorts of power regarding the management of the said properties. My eldest son, Bankey Behari Lal, should be appointed as the president (of the committee); Banarsi Das, my third son should be the secretary, and Sbeo Narayan, my fourth son, Jai Narayan, son of Bankey Bebari Lal aforesaid, Gur Narayan, son of Girdhari Lal, and Gauri Shanker, son of Raghubhar Dayal, should be appointed as the members of the said committee. The president's vote should be treated as three votes, the secre tary's vote as two and each member's vote as one. The resolutions should be always passed with reference to the majority of votes and the resolution passed should be considered to be the order of the committee and all proceedings of every sort should invariably be taken in accordance therewith. The power to remove or to re-appoint the president, secretary and the members shall remain in the bands of the committee ; but let it be known that anyone who shall be admitted into the committee as directed above shall be from amongst my sons, grandsons, and their descendants. The power to remove or to re-appoint the president, secretary and the members shall remain in the bands of the committee ; but let it be known that anyone who shall be admitted into the committee as directed above shall be from amongst my sons, grandsons, and their descendants. No stranger can be admitted into the committee, nor can he, under any circumstances, make any sort of interference. I.- I consider it admissible to give some of the directions below :- The Committee, so far as possible, shall be bound to comply with them. (a) Bisrent (ghat) of Sri Jamunaji should be built in Etawah at a cost of about Rs. 2,500. (b) A 'dharamsala' containing two temples, one of Sri Mahadeoji Maharaj and the other of Sri Thakurji Maharaj should be built in Etawah, at a cost of about Rs. 5,000. (c) In the said ' dharamsala ' each of the four sons of mine should cause 4 small rooms to be built at his own cost under the management of the committee, with reference to the plan of the 'dharamsala.' The amount that might be given in charity on the occasions of the marriages of my sons, grandsons or their male children, should be given in this ' waqf ' fund to the extent of ¼th, Should anyone fail to do so, he and his sons should be debarred from holding any of the afore said offices so long as they do not comply with the above directions. (d) The principal amount of cash or the property should not be utilised in defraying any expenses other than those enumerated above. So far as possible about 3/4th of the in come yielded thereby, i. e., interest or pro fits should be spent on the following object according to the discretion of the committee or any other act of charity. 1. Such quantity of unparched grain, flour or parched barley should be given for eating to 'sadhua,' 'bairagis' (mendicants) and pilgrims as might be considered proper or in the winter sea sons some clothes etc., or medicine might be distributed to the sick. 2. Expenses in connexion with the staff, pay of employees, repairs of the 'dharamsala,' temple and 'bisrant,' etc , (should be defrayed out of the said fund). 3. 2. Expenses in connexion with the staff, pay of employees, repairs of the 'dharamsala,' temple and 'bisrant,' etc , (should be defrayed out of the said fund). 3. Should any of my sons or their descendants lead a retired life and sit in contemplation and wish to be supplied with cloths and food, then the said person should get such assistance so long as he lives in the 'dharamsala.' II - The president and the secretary shall have power to realise every sort of money, grant re ceipts, acknowledge full payment, affix signature purchase, and sell property, verify at the time of registration, advance money on interest, carry on every sort of trade, take all sorts of Court proceedings either themselves or through their general attorney; in short they shall have power to take all the proceedings of every sort, but all the said proceedings relating to the 'waqf' shall be taken in the name of me, Lala Sital Prasad. The president and the secretary shall be compe tent to institute every sort of suit, set up defence and take Court proceedings in their own names. There shall be no necessity to include the names of other members. III. - In addition to the cash, etc., due to or by me under, my account-books and 'hundis,' at 5 biswa zamindari share in mauza Kutubpur, pargana Bhartna, district Etawah, which forms the subject-matter of a former gift and in res pect of which my name is entered in the public papers, i.e., the 'khewat,' is also included in the subject-matter of this Will. As regards the said property it is also directed that it may be sold if it can be sold with profit at a low rate of interest. IV. - No one at any time under any circum stances shall have any sort of claim in respect of the aforesaid property. The income and ex penditure, etc., of every sort shall be daily enter ed in the account-book. V. - The president and the secretary should according to the arbitration award, dated the 31st March 1903, take all proceedings in the cases relating to the shops at Cawnpore, the full parti culars whereof are given in the said arbitration award and get their names entered in the Court (papers) in place of my name. They should incur expenses out of the amount standing to my credit in the papers. They should incur expenses out of the amount standing to my credit in the papers. Moreover, the president and the secretary should cause mutation proceedings to be taken in respect of such property or land as might belong to any party under the said arbit ration award, but which might be entered in my name and in respect of which mutation proceed ings, etc., might not be completed in my lifetime. I have, therefore, executed this Will so that it may serve as evidence." It is obvious to their Lordships that Sital Prasad by his Will disposed of all his property. When Sital Prasad died his property was represented by Rs. 48,000 in cash or securities, two houses at Etawah valued at Rs. 2,000, and zamindari property valued at Rs. 2,000. The committee took over the houses and the zamindari pro perty. His eldest son, Banke Behari Lal got possession of the cash and securities and handed them over to a " shop'' which he and his sons carried on as a joint family, trading under the firm name of " Banke Behari Lal, Jai Narain." It has been held by the two Courts below, the District Judge and the High Court, that Sital Prasad by his Will crea ted a trust for public purposes of a chari table or religious nature and that it was not void as being vague or uncertain as to the charities to which it applied. Their Lordships agree with that construction of the Will. Having regard to the fact that the bathing ghat might be washed away or damaged by floods in the Jamna and the expenses which might have to be incurred in replacing it or in repairing it, and having regard to the fact that the expenses of maintaining a dharmasala would much de pend on the number of pilgrims using it, it was a prudent provision of the Will as their Lordships understand it, that one-fourth of the income of the endowment should ordinarily be kept in reserve by the trustees to meet such extraordinary expenses when they should occur. It is quite clear from Cl. IV of the Will that no one, except as provided by the Will, should have any claim to any part of the income of the waqf property. It is quite clear from Cl. IV of the Will that no one, except as provided by the Will, should have any claim to any part of the income of the waqf property. From 1904 until 1907 the committee appear practically to have done nothing to carry out Sital Prasad's directions, it is doubtful if during that period the commit tee held any meeting. So far as has been proved the first meeting of the committee was held on the 5th December 1907. The Committee, however, on the 12th Sep tember 1904, or one of them applied to the municipality of Etawah for permis sion to construct a bathing ghat on the Jamna and to erect a dharamsala. The application to construct the bathing ghat was refused because the committee required the Municipality to divert a pucca drain from the land which the committee required for the construction of the ghat. The application for permission to erect the dharamsala was refused because the com mittee wanted the Government to grant to them Nazul lands gratis. It may be doubted whether either of those applica tions was made bona fide. Nothing further was done by the committee for the con struction of a bathing ghat, and until 1907 nothing further was done by the committee with the object of erecting a dharamsala or of providing a building which could be used as a dharamsala. Banke Behari Lal died on the 5th March, 1907, and was succeeded as Presi dent of the committee of trustees by his second son Rup Narain, and later Lala Jai Narain, defendant 1, was appointed Secretary. On the 14th March 1907, Banarsi Das and Sheo Narain, two of the younger sons of Sital Prasad, brought a suit against Lala Jai Narain, defendant 1 of this suit Girwar dhari Lal their then eldest surviving bro ther and Gur Narain, the elder son of Gir dhari Lal, for cancellation of the will of 24th February, 1904, of Sital Prasad and for possession of their share of the estate of Sital Prasad, or in the alternative, if that will should be held to be genuine, an order that the directions contained in that will should be carried out. It may be inferred that the directions given in that will were not being carried out by the committee. It may be inferred that the directions given in that will were not being carried out by the committee. It is now necessary to be considered whether there were any misappropria tions of the waqf property by the trustees, and if there were, then it is to be consi dered whether the joint family trading as "Banke Behari Lal Jai Narain" can be made liable to repay any of the moneys misappropriated. The misappropriations which the Dis trict Judge and High Court have concurred in finding began in 1907 and ended in 1914, and in the aggregate amounted to Rs. 48,000. Their Lordships agree with the Courts below that these misappropriations for which the trustees are responsible were committed and amounted in the aggregate to Rs. 48,000. These misappropriations began after Banke Behari Lal died and they were committed with the knowledge and as sent of Lala Jai Narain, defendant 1, and for those misappropriations of the trust fund their Lordships agree with the Courts below that Lala Jai Narain, defendant 1, is responsible. After the death of Banke Behari Lal in 1907, the joint family continued to carry on the 'business which had been carried on in the firm name of ''Banke Behari Lal Jai Narain." Whether there was any change in the trading name of the joint family after the death of Banke Behari Lal their Lordships do not know, it is immaterial whether there was or was not a change in that trading name, and their Lordships will continue to refer to that trading name as the trading name of the joint family. It appears to their Lordships that after the death of Banke Behari Lal his eldest son Lala Jai Narain was the managing member of the joint family. After the death of Banke Behari Lal the joint family continued to hold on behalf of the trustees the moneys of the waqf fund which Banke Behari Lal had, on the death of Sital Prasad, deposited with "Banke Behari Lal Jai Narain." Lala Jai Narain, defendant 1, on behalf of the joint family, was a party to the following transactions which affected the trust fund of the trustees in the possession of the joint family. In 1907 some people in Etawah trad ing in the name of ''Durga Prasad and Sital Prasad" owed to ''Banke Behari Lal Jai Narain" Rs. 16,000. In 1907 some people in Etawah trad ing in the name of ''Durga Prasad and Sital Prasad" owed to ''Banke Behari Lal Jai Narain" Rs. 16,000. The debtors were in difficulties and Lala Jai Narain, defendant 1, repaid that debt to the joint family by transferring Rs. 16,000 from the credit account of the trustees to "Banke Behari Lal Jai Narain" and took a mortgage for Rs. 16,000 in favour of the trustees, thus substituting the trustees for "Banke Behari Lal Jai Narain" as the creditors of ''Durga Prasad and Sital Prasad". Another instance is, the Bharat Bank owed to "Banke Behari Lal Jai Narain" Rs. 10,000. The Bharat Bank got into difficulties and subsequently failed. Lala Jai Narain, defendant 1, on behalf of the joint family transferred that debt to the waqf account of the trustees with "Banke Behari Lal Jai Narain." In 1914 after Lala Prag Narain, defendant 2, who was one of the joint family, had become a member of the committee of trustees, a firm trading as "Ram Din and Sital Prasad" owed Rs. 16,000 to "Banke Behari Lal Jai Narain". The debt was unsecured and the debtors were unable to pay it. Lala Jai Narain defendant in the interests of "Banke Behari Lal Jai Narain" transferred the debt of Rs. 16,000 to the waqf account of the trustees. The three instances to which their Lordships have referred repre sent in the aggregate Rs. 41,000 of the total sum of Rs. 48,000 which was misap propriated, and in their Lordships' opinion for that Rs. 41,000 Lala Prag Narain and Brahma Narain, defendants 2 and 3, as members of the joint family trading in the name of "Banke Behari Lal Jai Narain" are equally responsible in this suit with Lala Jai Narain, defendant 1; but in their Lordships' opinion it has not been proved that the joint family is responsible for the balance of Rs. 7,000 of the Rs. 48,000 of misappropriation of the waqf fund. The learned District Judge decreed the suit in the manner following :- (1) The committee will be re-constituted as fol lows subject to their acceptance : Lala She Narayan, president ; Lala Prag Narayan, Lala Suraj Narayan, defendants, Lala Gauri Shankar, plaintiff and Babu Dharam Narayan, pleader, Mainpuri, members. 7,000 of the Rs. 48,000 of misappropriation of the waqf fund. The learned District Judge decreed the suit in the manner following :- (1) The committee will be re-constituted as fol lows subject to their acceptance : Lala She Narayan, president ; Lala Prag Narayan, Lala Suraj Narayan, defendants, Lala Gauri Shankar, plaintiff and Babu Dharam Narayan, pleader, Mainpuri, members. (2) The entire property will be put in charge of the said trustees for management on the lines (3) Lala Jai Narayan will, within 3 months, furnish full accounts of the affairs of the trust, showing how the capital sum estimated at Rs. 52,000 has been utilised, and also how the in terests thereon at a rate fixed by the Court at 4 percent, per annum has been spent. Neither the transfers to Lala Jei Narayan, himself in lieu of mortgages, 'hundis' or other securities can be accepted by the Court, nor can the release to Lala Benarsi Das of Rs. 10,000 with interest thereon be allowed as a charge against the fund. The balance due to the fund on these accounts which are to be furnished will be handed over to the committee in the form of cash or realizable securities. (4) The committee will have full power to carry out the testator's wishes as laid down in the will. They, will close the Gracey Hindu School, prepare a scheme of systematic charity and either build a dharmasala, or some similar institution of a kind approved by this Court, (5) The plaintiff's costs will be borne by Lala Jai Narayan personally, who will bear his own costs and those of Lala Gur Narayan. The other defendants will bear their own costs with the proviso that those of the heirs of Lala Benarsi Das will be paid out of the estate of Lala Benarsi Das. Interest at 6 percent, per annum will be allowed on the costs as usual. And that the sum of Rs. 1,079-2-0 be paid by Jai Narayan, defendant, to the plaintiff on ac count of costs of this suit with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent, per annum from this date to date of realisation. It is further ordered that Jai Narayan, de fendant, do pay Rs. 76 8-0 to Gur Narayan, de fendant, with interest at 6 percent, per annum from this date up to the date of realisation and Rs. It is further ordered that Jai Narayan, de fendant, do pay Rs. 76 8-0 to Gur Narayan, de fendant, with interest at 6 percent, per annum from this date up to the date of realisation and Rs. 203-4-0 on account of costs of Suraj Narayan and others, defendants, with interest to be charg ed to the property of Lala Benarsi Das. From that decree the plaintiffs appeal ed to the High Court as also did Lala Jai Narain, defendant 1, and Lala Sheo Narain, defendant 8, who, so far as his costs only were concerned, filed a cross-objection. The High Court heard the two appeals together and dealt with them and the cross-objection in one judgment, as the Court was entitled to do. The High Court made the following decree : It is ordered and decreed that the decree of the Judge of Mainpuri be modified to this extent that the direction to Jai Narain to render accounts to the new committee be deleted therefrom and instead thereof it is hereby directed that the first three defendants shall pay to the new com mittee Rs. 48,000 with interest at 4 percent, per annum from the 5th of March 1905, to the date of payment, less a sum of Rs. 1,308, and shall deliver the houses and the share in the village of Kutubpur to the new committee and that the rest of the said decree be maintained and this appeal and the cross objection filed by Sheo Narayan under Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Proce dure be and they hereby are dismissed. And it is further ordered that the appellant aforesaid do pay to the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 aforesaid, the sum of Rs. (1,331-11-3) one thou sand three hundred and thirty-one, annas eleven and pies three only, the amount of costs incurred by the latter in this Court. And it is further ordered that the costs incurred in the lower Court be paid with interest hereon as awarded by the said Court. 1 to 3 aforesaid, the sum of Rs. (1,331-11-3) one thou sand three hundred and thirty-one, annas eleven and pies three only, the amount of costs incurred by the latter in this Court. And it is further ordered that the costs incurred in the lower Court be paid with interest hereon as awarded by the said Court. Their Lordships, having considered the facts in the suit and the law which appears to them to be applicable to the facts will humbly advise His Ma jesty that the appeal of Lala Jai Narain, defendant, should be dis missed, but the decree against Lala Prag Narain and Brahma Narain, de fendants 2 and 3, should be varied by making the principal sum which they are jointly and severally with Lala Jai Narain liable to pay to the new committee to be Rs. 41,000 with interest at 4 percent, per annum from the 5th March 1904, to the date of payment, less the sum of Rs. 1,308, and that the rest of the decree of the High Court should stand. Lala Jai Narain must pay two-thirds of the costs of the respondents in these consoli dated appeals, and Lala Prag Narain and Brahma Narain must pay one-third of the costs of the respondents in these consoli dated appeals as the variation of the dec ree of the High Court, which their Lord ships advise should be made, was not sug gested by them or on their behalf, and they have made no payment into Court, and have resisted the claim of the plaintiffs from the first. Before concluding, their Lordships must refer to a matter which has caused much trouble in the preparation of the advice which they will humbly offer to His Majesty. In the judgment delivered by the learned Judges of the High Court they correctly said :-" The two appeals Nos. Before concluding, their Lordships must refer to a matter which has caused much trouble in the preparation of the advice which they will humbly offer to His Majesty. In the judgment delivered by the learned Judges of the High Court they correctly said :-" The two appeals Nos. 140 and 241 of 1916 are connected and arise out of a suit brought under S. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure." In the case which was filed in this appeal on behalf of Lala Jai Narain, his counsel stated :- " Against the said decree of the District Judge, Jai Narain and the plaintiffs both appealed to the High Court." In the case which was filed in this appeal on behalf of Lala Prag Narain and Lala Brahma Narain their counsel stated : " The 1st defendant, Jai Narain, appealed from the said decree of the District Judge to the High Court of Judicature at Allaha bad, and the plaintiffs filed cross-objections in regard to costs." No copy of the appeal which presumably was filed by the plain tiffs appears in the record which is before their Lordships, and the cross-objections in regard to costs which were in fact filed were filed not by the plaintiffs, but by the defendant Lala Sheo Narain. In the case which was filed in this appeal on behalf of two of the plaintiffs by another counsel it is stated : " Lala Jai Narain alone appealed to the High Court against the decree of the learned District Judge, and impleaded as respondents the plaintiffs and the defen dants who had not appealed." Such contradictory statements as to matters which were of record very rarely occur in cases filed in appeals to His Majesty in Council, but in the present case the con tradictory statements and the absence from the record before their Lordships of a copy of the memorandum of appeal to the High Court of the plaintiffs who did appeal to that Court must be the results of negligence for which persons in India are presumably responsible. Their Lord ships must accept as correct the statement of the learned Judges of the High Court in their judgment that there were two ap peals before them, but they observe that only one decree is included in the printed record, and that was in the appeal No. 140 of 1916 to Lala Jai Narain. Their Lord ships must accept as correct the statement of the learned Judges of the High Court in their judgment that there were two ap peals before them, but they observe that only one decree is included in the printed record, and that was in the appeal No. 140 of 1916 to Lala Jai Narain. Appeal dismissed.