1. This appeal must be allowed. One Achambhit Mal died in 1911 possessed of some property. His widow died in October 1923, and the present suit was instituted by Achambhit’s daughter, Bachchi Kunwar, to obtain possession of what was once her father’s property. The suit is directed against Ram Lakhan Mal, the respondent, who is Achambhit Mal’s brother’s son. Ram Lakhan’s case was that his uncle died joint with him and the daughter had no interest in the property. The Court of first instance decreed the suit except as to a small portion of the property with which we are not concerned here. On appeal by Ram Lakhan, the learned District Judge has come to the conclusion that although Achambhit Mal and Ram Lakhan were separate in 1907 Ram Lakhan and Achambhit reunited. In second appeal it is contended by Mr. Shastry on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant, that the learned Judge has arrived at the finding of reunion, a finding of law, on insufficient materials. His case is that the learned Judge has simply found that in 1907 the nephew Ram Lakhan came to live with his uncle, that they lived thereafter in the same house and cultivated and worked together, and that these facts are not sufficient to justify a finding of reunion,
2. I am clear that this contention is right. The learned Judge, in my opinion, has been swayed unduly by the fact that the present suit has been instigated and instituted at the suggestion of the plaintiff’s father-in-law, who is, of course, a stranger to the family of Ram Lakhan. The learned Judge found that during her lifetime, Achambhit’s widow lived with her husband’s nephew and did not claim a share and the idea that the daughter should claim the property did not appeal, as good, to the learned District Judge. As a matter of fact, during the lifetime of her mother, the plaintiff made an attempt to assert her title which might accrue to her on her mother’s death but her attempt was unsuccessful on the ground that she had no title to assert in the lifetime of her mother.
3. Apart from sentiment, therefore, the question is whether the three facts found would constitute a reunion. The learned Judge does not mention any fact which would go to show that the uncle and nephew agreed that they would change their status of separate coparceners and would assume the status which existed before the partition. The learned Judge has found in unmistakable terms and on evidence which cannot be misread or misinterpreted that prior to the year 1907, the uncle and nephew were separate. They held properties separately, they dealt with properties separately and they contracted debts separately. The mere fact that the nephew in 1907 came to live with the old uncle and helped him in his cultivation of the sir lands will not make him joint with the uncle.
4. The result is that I allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court and restore the decree of the Munsif. The appellant will have her costs in this Court and in the lower appellate Court.