VITHAI GANGADHAR GUMGAONKAR Vs. PUNABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a suit for petition, the plaintiff had approached the Civil Court with a plea that although there were three brothers; one brother at the time of acquisition of the house property was minor and two major brothers had acquired the house property which is the property in suit. In respect of these acquisitions, the Appellate Court recorded a finding that it was an acquisition which had nothing to do with any 'nucleus' supplied by the joint family property, much less any nucleus left by the father of these brothers, enablmg them to purchase the house property and consequently the Appellate Court found that the purchase of the house property, sometime in the year 1904 by the two brothers, was their separate acquisition jointly in the name of the two brothers. There is also a further observation that the property was never thrown into any joint family property by any act of the two brothers. Therefore, the third brother, who was minor at the material time, stood in relation to this property almost as a stranger and though he might have been living alongwith the two joint owners as a blood relation, the property was found to have not been forming to be the joint family property, of all the three brothers as such:

(2.) WHEN this was so, sometime in 1940 when one of the co-owners of this property, viz. one brother named Chimana, who had purchased the property jointly with Narayan as co-owners of the same, on Chimana s death leaving no issue, the property devolves on the remaining co-owners.

(3.) WHAT was sought to be urged and the only point that was urged in this appeal, was that on the death of Chimana a succession would open and whosoever the Legal Representatives of Chimana under the Hindu Law can be considered for holding that they all should have share in Chimana' s property. This argument cannot be accepted because on chimana's death, the property devolves not by succession but on the remaining co-owners and once that is clearly considered and understood, what the Appellate Court has done, in not considering the third brother Dhamnya or his heirs to be entitled to any share in the property, seems to be the correct view in the matter and there does not appear to be any scope to justifiably contend that on the death of one co-owner/brother a succession would open and the heirs of all the brothers would have share into the property. This would be a misconception of law. On the death of one of the co-owners, the property devolves on rest of the co-owners and this point the Appellate Court has correctly considered.