In my view, the plaintiff’s evidence as seen above is
sufficient to hold that nucleus was available and this
aspect must be appreciated coupled with the fact that,
admittedly both the parties are brothers and were living
jointly. It is also to be noted that defendant No.2
Smt. Kashibai was examined and she has admitted in her
cross-examination that defendant No.1 is a owner of half
share of the suit property by stating that half share is
purchased by the defendant No.1. If this is the
position, in my view, both the Courts below did not
commit any error in law saddling the defendant No.1 with
burden of establishing that it was a benami transaction
and the property was purchased by him from the
contribution of Navdurga deity. The evidence of the
defendants was too short to establish this aspect and,
therefore, I have no hesitation whatsoever to hold that
both the Courts below have rightly concluded that the
suit property is the joint family property in which
plaintiff and defendant No.1 have 1/2 share each.
