MOHANSINGH Vs. PUNJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GOVINDA , Narayan and Namu were three brothers. The plaintiff Mt. Punji is the daughter of Narayan and his wife Rangubai. Her case was that the field in suit was the property of Laxmibai, mother of the three brothers. Laxmi died in 1908 when her sons were separate. Thus Narayan inherited a one-third share. Narayan and Rangubai became owners of Namu's share by adverse possession, and Rangubai purchased Govinda's share on 18th January 1913. Thus Rangubai became owner of the whole property, and the plaintiff succeeded to her after her death in 1914.

(2.) THE defence was that the field in suit was purchased by Govinda on behalf of himself and his brothers on 19th February 1901, that the brothers never separated and that in 1916 the manager of the joint; family sold the field to one Dhondu, who in turn sold it to defendant 1.

(3.) IN second appeal it is urged that, even if there was no nucleus of joint property, the acquisition by the three brothers would be joint family property. It has been held in Karsondas Dharamsey v. Gangabai [1908] 32 Bom. 479 that joint family property can come into existence without a preexisting nucleus. Apart from this I consider that the finding of the lower appellate Court regarding nucleus is due to some confusion. It is found that the three brothers were joint at the time of the purchase. There is no presumption that they were each possessed of separate property and that each contributed from his separate property to make up the purchase-money. The inference from the facts, that the brothers were joint, that there were no other co-sharers and that the brothers, after the purchase, owned the property in equal shares, is that the purchase was made with joint funds. It is then joint property and passes by survivorship on the death of a member of the joint family.