BAJIRAO TUKARAM KUNBI Vs. RAMKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal raises a number of points, one of which is of considerable importance. The points can best be under, stood when the following facts have been stated: The following genealogical tree shows the relationship: DEWAJI (dead) | ______________________________________ | | Tukaram Bhagirathi = Bakaram = Yamuna (died 1891) (died 1921)(died 22-10-1918)(died 1935) | | Bajirao Shankar = Parvati (Defendant 1) (died 14-9-1913) | | | Ramkrishna (Plaintiff) | (adopted on 17-12-1936) | __________________ | _____________________________ | | Narayan (deft. 2) Rangrao (deft. 3)

(2.) IT should be added that the group, Bajirao, Narayan and "Bangrao, (forming the family composed of a father and two sons in the Tukaram line) separated on 16th September 1912 from the Bakaram group. But this did not result in the parties for ever being divided because there was a reunion in 1914, that is to say, after the death of Bakaram's son, Shankar. Thus from 1914 to the death of Bakaram in 1918 the Bakaram line and the Bajirao line were joint. There was a partition on 19th September 1936, after Bakaram's death and before Ramkrishna's adoption, when the members of the joint Hindu family springing from Dewaji were all dead except Bajirao, Narayan and Bangrao (and may be their womenfolk, a matter that was not regarded as relevant) of the Tukaram line and widow Parvatibai of the Bakaram line. Of these the appellants stress the fact that Parvatibai was not a coparcener but a mere maintenance-holder. Accordingly it is said that at the date of the partition, 19th September 1936, the only coparceners in this joint Hindu family were defendants 1, 2 and 3, and that as a consequence of their separation they had brought the coparcenary for ever to an end and that accordingly (1) Parvatibai's power to adopt was at an end, alternatively, (2) if she had power to adopt, Ramkrishna obtained no property because he was adopted into the family of Dewaji at a time when that coparcenary had been brought to an end, alternatively at a time when it had been divested of all the joint family property by that property losing its quality of jointness by division amongst the surviving coparceners on separation. In other words, on either view, when Bam-krishna was adopted there was no share in the family property that he could claim. This is a point of importance.

(3.) AS to the first of the above points we do not propose to examine any of the arguments as we regard it as concluded by a Division Bench of this High Court in Bapuji v. Gangaram A.I.R. 1941 Nag. 116, a case which in turn is founded on the Privy Council decisions there examined. As to point 3 we regard it as clear that where the members of a joint Hindu family acquire property oat of moneys representing either capital or income of the joint family property the resulting acquisitions go to increase the joint family property. The proposition, in our opinion, is so well established that it would be a waste of time to cite authorities. Indeed, in this very case, the purchases were by defendant 1 and yet when he came to divide up the properties between himself and his sons these freshly purchased fields and so forth were divided up as being joint family property. That leaves outstanding the big question which has been very fully argued before us, argued with great ingenuity by Mr. Bobde who, not unnaturally, has founded himself mainly on a Pull Bench decision of the Bombay High Court Balu Sakharam v. Lahoo Sambhaji , and on cases which have followed that decision in Bombay and on other Bombay decisions. We do not propose to examine all these Bombay decisions--they are numerous--but the following have been cited as directly deciding this very point or as containing statements of the law which j result, it is said, if logically applied, in the conclusion sought to be reached by the appellants: Dhondi Dnyanoo v. Rama Bala A.I.R. 1936 Bom. 132, Basawantappa v. Mallappa A.I.R. 1939 Bom. 178 , Krishnaji Raghunath v. Rajaram Trimbak A.I.R. 1938 Bom. 383, Chanbassappa v. Buchappa A.I.R. 1939 Bom. 47, Ayyangouda v. Gadigeppagouda , Balu Sakharam v. Lahoo Sambhaji , Irappa Lokappa v. Rachayya Madiwalayya , Rudrappa v. Mallappa and Anandibai v. Vasudev A.I.R. 1939 Bom. 81.