GOVIND BHASKAR PATIL Vs. PANDURANG JANARDAN PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [His Lordship after referring to the facts of the case proceeded.] The learned counsel for the appellants was not able to point out a single reason as to why the plaintiff's witnesses Balkrishna and Narayan, should not be believed.

(2.) HE could not explain as to why Bhaskar, during his lifetime, never treated either Janardan or his widow or children as anybody but members of his own family.

(3.) THE position was reiterated by him in Rajani Kanta Pal v. Jaga Mohan Pal , which, though a case under the Dayabhaga, does not make any difference, so far as the proposition, is concerned. It was observed (p. 178): .The real question for determination is what is the true conclusion to be drawn when people united, as the present parties were, by bonds of close relationship and living as a joint family, draw for the joint family expenses out of a fund enriched by other contributions? They think that the result is accurately stated by the Subordinate Judge in the following words: 'If the members of a joint Hindu family confuse the incomes of their joint properties with their separate properties, their intention presumably is that the properties acquired with such mixed -up funds are for the benefit of the joint family. It should be noticed that not only these acquisitions and improvements made in this case with the amalgamated and confused funds, but the incomes arising from such acquisitions and improvements were again partly spent also for joint family expenses and purposes, and the balances were again mixed up and confused from year to year to acquire properties and make improvements.'