properties are purchased by Defendant No.1. All the properties are
earned by him in his capacity as tenant either under the provisions of
the Tenancy Act or under the provisions of the Bombay Paragana and
Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950. The Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court have arrived at the finding that a tenancy was held by
him him as a Manager (Karta) of joint family. Though Mr. Wadikar has
made strenuous attempts to impress upon me that Plaintiff failed to
prove existence of nucleus of joint family for purchase of suit properties
through that nucleus, in my view, it was not at all necessary for the
Plaintiff to prove presence of such nucleus. This is so because Defendant
No.1 has not purchased any other properties therefore there was no
necessity for Plaintiff to prove presence of a nucleus through which the
properties could be purchased. Once evidence was led that Defendant
No.1 held tenancy in respect of those lands in his capacity as Karta of
the joint family, the consequential benefits that he received through
such tenancies would obviously of the entire joint family. Mr. Wadikar’s
reliance on the condition of impartibility in the order of the re-grant
does not cut any ice. Once it is proved that the re-grant is made in the
name of Defendant No.1 on account of tenancy rights held by him on
behalf of the entire joint family, the re-grant would also for the benefit of
the entire joint family.
