Beaman, J - (1.)I have stopped the case at this point because I think it useless to waste further time and money in the collection and criticism of evidence upon facts in dispute. I am not going to take the case one inch beyond the admitted facts. On these I do not entertain the least doubt but that the necessary conclusion of law follows.
(2.)Briefly, the material facts are that one Karsandas Liladhar died in 1902, having executed a will, appointing as his executors his two elder sons Ranchordas; and Narotam and bequeathing his estate to his two minor children Gokuldas and Damodar. The family was attacked by plague and the eldest son Ranchordas predeceased his father by a few hours. Next Karsandas died, and very shortly afterwards his younger son Damodar. Thus there remained one executor Narotam and the present plaintiff, to whom the deceased Karsandas Liladhar had left all his estate. Narotam came to Bombay after having entrusted the management -of Karsandas s Mahim properties (iii which a small plot of land now in dispute is included) to Nathu Valji, a close friend and relative of the family. In 1903
(3.)Narotam died, and up to that time the minor, the plaintiff Gokuldas, resided with Bai Premcorebai, widow of the deceased Ranchordas. In 1904 the plaintiff went to reside with Nathu Valji, who was continuing the management of the Mahim estate after the death of Narotam as before that event. In 1905 Nathu Valji bought the Fazendari tenancy of a tenant of the estate he was managing for the minor Gokuldas. It has been the plaintiff s contention that this purchase was made out of the estate money and for the benefit of the estate ; and if that were so, then there could be no question but that the plaintiff would be entitled to succeed.