JUDGMENT 1. This application in revision is on, behalf of one Din Dayal Shah against an order of the President of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal, dated the 3rd September, 1927. The facts appear to be that a portion of premises No. 2, Circular Garden Reach Road, was acquired and a certain amount is now in deposit with the Tribunal as compensation therefor. The property stood in the name of one Muralidhar Shah, The petitioner before us says that Muralidhar Shah was his elder brother and karta of a joint Mitakshara family including their children. The petitioner brought a suit in the Original Hide of this Court for partition of the joint properties in that suit (No. 2470 of 1925), a Receiver was appointed in respect of the joint properties by this Court in its Original Side. With the consent of the parties, namely, the petitioner Din Dayal who was the plaintiff and Muralidhar who was the defendant, the Official Receiver of this Court was appointed Receiver in that suit of all the joint moveable and Immovable properties belonging to the joint family estate--one of such properties being No. 2 Circular Garden Reach Road. The Official Receiver was subsequently discharged and Mr. Srinibash Sarkar was appointed Receiver in the suit. Muralidhar died soon after and the plain lift in that suit (the petitioner before us) applied to withdraw from the suit. By an order of the Court dated the 8th August, 1927, she petitioner was given liberty to withdraw the suit; and it was further ordered that Srinibash Sarkar who was appointed Receiver for the joint family estate should be discharged and he was directed to make over possession of the said estate to "the plaintiff Din Dayal Shah as karta of the joint family." Thereafter Din. Dayal applied to withdraw the amount in deposit to the credit of Muralidhar as karta of the joint family. Muralidhar died leaving a minor son Ram Babu who is the opposite-party in this matter. As there was no one to represent him we directed that the Deputy Registrar should be appointed his guardian ad litem; and we have heard the learned Vakil who appears for Deputy Registrar in connexion with this matter. Muralidhar died leaving a minor son Ram Babu who is the opposite-party in this matter. As there was no one to represent him we directed that the Deputy Registrar should be appointed his guardian ad litem; and we have heard the learned Vakil who appears for Deputy Registrar in connexion with this matter. We are satisfied on the various proceedings placed before us in the suit in the Original Side of this Court that the petitioner is the person to whom the money in deposit in the Court below is due within the meaning of s.32 of the Land Acquisition Act. The property which was acquired was according to the proceedings in the Original Side suit a joint family property of which Muralidhar, being the eldest member, was the karta. After his death the petitioner has become the karta of the family; and in that capacity he is entitled to the amount though it stood to the credit of Muralidhar. It also appears that there was a claimant in the Land Acquisition case who claimed some interest in the property acquired. By an order of this Court in its Original Side, dated the 29th March, 1926, the Official Receiver who was then acting as Receiver in the suit was given the liberty to compromise the apportionment case in connexion with the acquisition of premises No. 2 Circular Garden Reach Road with the claimant by paying him a certain amount and the balance was directed to be divided between the plaintiff and the defendant in the suit. That is an order which also makes it clear that the money which was deposited in the name of Muralidhar is the Land Acquisition Court was in respect of the joint family property. The property acquired being a joint family property the minor as the heir of Muralidhar is not entitled to the entire amount of the compensation; but the family being governed by the Mitakshara Law the petitioner is now the person who represents the joint family and he, in our opinion, is the proper person to receive payment of the amount in deposit. We accordingly make this Rule absolute and direct that the amount in deposit in the Court below be paid to the petitioner.