PATEL ISHWARLAL NANSHA Vs. PATEL GOVINDLAL NANSHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The lands described in para 10 (b) and 10 (c) belong to the joint family. There was no dispute. Now, therefore if defendant No. 1 shows that he constructed on the lands which were joint family properties he was doing so with open eyes and, therefore, he was doing the work for the benefit of the joint family. That fact can never be disputed. If one coparcener constructs or puts on a super-structure with the funds of the joint family or with the mixed funds of both, the intention of putting up the super-structure on the joint land would be that super-structure should belong ultimately to the joint family. That situation can never be avoided.