The Calcutta Weekly Notes and Notes of Cases of the Calcutta High Court and of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the English Law Courts Monday February 20 1922

The Plaintiff sought to get over it by relying on the principle rcognised in several cases under which the period requisite for obtaining copy of the judgment for the purpose of appealing has been allowed to be tacked on to the period during which the Court that passed the decree appealed against was closed if it was too late to apply for a copy on the date when the judment was pronounced. [...] There is community of interest and unity of possession betwe"n all the members of the family and upon the death of any one of them the others may well take by survivorship that in which they had during the deceased's liftime a common interest and common possesion (3)." " As to the separately acquired property of an united family the other members of that family have neither community of int [...] The distinction between cparceners and reversioners may be put thus : the co-pareener has before succession comunity of interest and unity of possession in respect of the joint estate with the deceased while the reversioner has neither community of interest nor unity of possession with the widow in respect of the " reversionary " estate. [...] The Mitashara law which is practically the common law of Hindu India in matters of inheritance and succession favours the one and the Dayabhaga which is the exception to the general rule favours the other. [...] The High Court affirmed the decision of the Trial Judge and refused leave to appeal to the Board on the ground that although the suit value was more than Rs.