1. I do not think that there is in reality any conflict of authority in this case. Mr. Justice Phear’s decision in Call Churn Mullick v. Janova Dossee 1 Ind. Jur. 284 was based upon three decisions of the Supreme Court. Mr. Justice Phear’s decision seems to have been accepted as an authority with regard to the Bengal school of law in the recent case of Damoodur Misser v. Senabutty Misrain I.L.R. 8 Cal. 542. According to Mr. Justice Phear’s decision, in a partition between sons by different wives, the respective mothers are only entitled to share equally with their own sons the aggregate of the shares which an equal division among the brothers allots to those sons; or, in other words, the property must be first divided into as many shares as there are sons. Each widow then shares equally with each of her sons the portion allotted to her sons. I have been referred to a decree passed by Mr. Justice Wilson on the 21st of July 1880 in the case of Torit Bhushun Bonnerjee v. Taraprosunno Bonnerjee. In that case one Dhurm Das Bonnerjee left him surviving the plaintiff, two other sons, and two widows, one of them the mother of the plaintiff, and the other the mother of the two other sons. Mr. Justice WILSON ordered the property to be divided into four parts, giving one of such parts to each of the three sons, and the fourth part to the two widows.
2. In that case, however, it does not appear that there was any contest or argument.
3. I think that I must follow Mr. Justice Phear’s decision, and declare that the male defendant is entitled to a half share of the property.
4. As I understand it, the plaintiff does not dispute the right of her mother-in-law to a share on partition. The other half will, therefore, be divided between the plaintiff and the female defendant in equal shares.