There is no specific evidence or finding as to when the blending took place. Therefore, it cannot be said that Defendant No.1 did not have any independent source of income

Citation

CDJ 2005 MHC 1409

Partition - Ancestral Property - It is apparent that before acquisition of property relating to item No.9, the other properties have been settled with Defendant No.1 by his paternal uncle. Compared to the extent of the joint family property as well as the extent of the property acquired, the extent of such gifted property was much more. Thus, it cannot be said that at the time when acquisition was made in respect of property under item No.9, Karta had no other independent source of income. It is of course true that the property gifted by the paternal uncle of Defendant No.1 has been subjected to partition as per the decree of the trial court and such decree though initially challenged, has not been touched by the learned single Judge. In view of the finding of the trial court regarding blending, we accept the contention of the appellant is that there was blending of the property of Defendant No.1. However, still then it cannot be assumed that by the time of acquisition in 1931 such property had been blended. There is no specific evidence or finding as to when the blending took place. Therefore, it cannot be said that Defendant No.1 did not have any independent source of income. Apart from the above, defendant No.1 in his evidence has stated about his cultivation of other properties as a cultivating tenant. Even though the learned counsel for the appellant sought to challenge such evidence by contending that no documents have been produced, we do not find that such statement of Defendant No.1 has been in any way shaken in cross-examination. From the above, it is apparent that apart from meagre ancestral property, defendant No.1 had access to other agricultural properties as a donee and as a cultivating tenant.

Para 38

Comparative Citations:
2005 (4) CTC 457, 2005 (3) LW 627

#partition

#blending