On 24th January, 1956 Bai Kashi, the widow of Nathubhai, died while the family companytinued to be a joint undivided Hindu family.
On the question as to who the heirs of Nathubhai are at the time of the death of Bai Kashi the trial companyrt held that as the parties were in Gujarat the Mayukh school will govern the inheritance and in Gujarat the Mayukh school overrules the Mitakshara school and therefore full broth ers inherit along with sons of full brothers who are dead and therefore after the death of Bai Kashi the defendant and plaintiff No.
It also found that the defendant and his broth ers had separated and the suit house was also divided as alleged by the defendant and recorded the finding in favour of the defendant.
2 Does he further prove that the sale deed executed by Bai Kashi in respect of the one third share of the suit house was for legal necessity anti to satisfy her debts ?
So far as the suit house was companycerned it was divided though number by metes and bounds and the brothers lived in separate portions of the house.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Decree dated 21/22 3 1968 of the Gujarat High Court in First Appeal No.
On these pleadings 9 issues were framed of which three are relevant for the purpose of this appeal.
a one half share in the whole of the suithouse ?
1 would inherit together to the share of Nathubhai.
The respondents also questioned the validity of a sale deed executed by Bai Kashi on 25th April, 1955 in favour of the appellants of her share in the immoveable property as it was number for legal necessity.
Subsequently in the year 1942 Lallubhai died.
On the third issue the trial companyrt recorded a find ing that after Bai Kashis death the respondents became entitled to 1/2 share in the whole of the suit house.
In the written statement the appellants denied that the three brothers were members of a joint family.
The appellants claimed that they were entitled to 2/3 share in the house as Bai Kashi the widow of Nathubhai had sold her share by registered deed 25th April, 1955 to the appellants.
The trial companyrt found that the three brothers had become separate in status before the deaths of Nathubhai and Lallubhai.
and 3 Do the plaintiffs prove that after Bai Kashis death they become entitled to.
They pleaded that the brothers were separated and each branch used to do its own business keeping their earnings separately and messing separately.
The case of the plaintiffs, respondents in this appeal, is that the three brothers Nathubhai, Lallubhai and Nanab hai were members of a joint undivided Hindu family and when they were joint in the year 1940 Nathubhai died leaving his widow Bai Kashi.
According to the respondents the properties were never partitioned though the three brothers were staying and messing separately and each branch carried on its business separately.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
death of Nathubhai ?
T. Desai, I. N. Shroff and H.S. Parihar for the Appel lants.
Lallubhais son, Manilal, was the first plaintiff and his mother and widow of LaIIubhai, Bai Mani, was the second plaintiff.
Nathubhai, Lallubhai and Nanabhai were originally the members of a joint Hindu family.
Nanabhai is the defend ant whose legal representatives are the present appellants in this Court.
B. Nagarsett and A. G. Ratnaparkhi for the Respondents.
The family immoveable and moveable properties were never divided.
760/60.
They are 1 Does the defendant prove that he and his two brothers Nathubhai and Lallubhai had separated and the suit house was also divided through number by metes and bounds at the time of the.
The suit was filed by Manilal Lallubhai and his widow Bai Mani against Nanabhai Fakirchand for partition and allotment of one half share of the suit house and the moveable properties mentioned in the plaint.
1988 of 1968.
One Fakirchand had three sons, Nathubhai, Lallubhai and Nanabhai.
Regarding the second issue it found that the defendant had failed to prove that there was legal necessity for Bai Kashi to sell away the share in the suit house.
The second plaintiff is since dead and his legal representatives are respondents 2 b and 2 c in this appeal.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAILASAM, J. This appeal is by the legal representa tives of the defendant in the suit by special leave against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Gujarat.
On this basis the trial companyrt was of the view that on the death of Bai Kashi her share would go to the reversion ers.
