BHASKARBHAI RAMCHANDRA PATEL Vs. (THE) STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) xxx xxx xxx.

(2.) It was the case of petitioner No. 1 in the proceeding culminating into the impugned order at Annexure B to this petition that the disputed property was purchased by his father from his Hindu undivided family funds sometime in 1969 and it was partitioned among all the four brothers and their mother equally during the life-time of his father sometime in 1973. A copy of the partition deed in that regard was also produced on record. A copy of the sale deed under which the father of petitioner No. 1 purchased the property was also produced on record. It appears that respondent No. 3 did not believe the case in that regard to on the ground that the disputed property in the hands of the father of petitioner No. 1 was not an ancestral property. Besides, respondent No. 3 read into the note; appended to the relevant column contained in the prescribed form (a copy of which is at Annexure A to this petition) to the effect that the disputed property was to be divided amongst all the heirs of the deceased father of petitioner No. 1 to mean that was yet to be partitioned. I think this approach on the part of respondent No. 3 cannot be sustained in law for two very good reasons. In the : first place, according to well-settled principles of the Hindu Law, a property to be an undivided Hindu family property need not be ancestral in nature. If the nucleolus has flown from the joint Hindu family property funds, even if the newly acquired property is not an ancestral property, it would acquire the character of a joint Hindu family property or an undivided Hindu family property. With respect, respondent No.3 appears to have remained oblivious to this well-settled principle of the Hindu Law. Even if a property is purchased by a Hindu from his own funds, according to well-settled principles of the Hindu law, such purchaser can throw such acquired property into the joint family hotchpotch and in that case it would acquire the character of a joint Hindu family property. I am told at the Bar that it was the case of petitioner No. 1 before respondent No.

(3.) duly supported by the material on record that the funds for purchase of the disputed property flew from the undivided joint family funds. In that view of the matter, there was no reason for respondent No. 3 not to treat it as a property belonging to the undivided Hindu family of the petitioners. 3. xxx xxx xxx.