1. This plaintiff's Section Appeal is directed against the appellate decree of the learned Assistant Judge, Satara confirming the decree of the trial Court whereby the plaintiff's claim for partition of his share in the properties described in plaint paras 1-B 1-K was dismissed.
2. The plaintiff brought the suit in question against his brother defendant No. 1 and others for partition and separate possession of his 1/4th share in the house property described in plaint paras 1-A and 1/2 share in the other properties decried in plaint paras 1-B to 1-K. The trial Court granted the plaintiff a decree for partition, holding that he has 1/4th share in the property at serial No. 1 and 1/6th share in the house property described in plaint para 1-B. As regards the rest of the properties, the trial Court held that these properties were acquired by the plaintiff's mother Laxmibai by inheritance from her father Balaji Deshpande and as such they were her absolute properties. It is common ground that this Laxmibai had executed a Will of these properties in favour of the present defendant No. 2 who is the wife of defendant No. 1. This will was executed in November, 1958, and thereafter in Feb., 1959 Laxmibai died. For his claim that these properties also formed part of the joint family property, the plaintiff relied on a document dated 17th Nov., 1964 (Ext. 110 is the true copy) executed by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in his favour, purporting to blend them with the rest of the joint family property. There is a concurrent finding of both Courts below Negativing the plaintiff's contention that under this document, defendant No. 2 who is a female could validly blend her interest in the property with the rest of the joint family property. In that view, the plaintiff's claim to the properties bequeathed to defendant No. 2 by Laxmibai came to be dismissed by both the Courts below.
3. Now in this Section Appeal the only question debated is as to the effect of the document dated 17th Nov., 1964, executed by defendant No. 2 purporting to blend her interest in the property. In : 3SCR779 Mallesappa Bandappa v. Desai Mallappa, the Supreme Court has ruled that the doctrine of blending cannot be applied, where a Hindu female has acquired property from her father. It is true that in the particular case before their Lordships of the Supreme Court, the female had acquired only a limited interest, while in the present case, defendant No. 2 has acquired absolute ownership under the bequest, by her mother-in-law Laxmibai. The plaintiff's learned advocate sought to distinguish the above ruling on this ground. I am clear that the principle underlying the ruling will apply squarely to the facts of the present case also. The doctrine of blending is inapplicable to a female member, because she is not a coparcener; the nature of her title whether absolute or limited is not relevant in the context. It is only a coparcener who can validly blend his own property with joint family property and inasmuch as a female cannot in law be a coparcener, she cannot blend her separate property, whether she is an absolute or a limited owner thereof. The ruling was rightly applied to the facts of the present case by the learned Assistant Judge. This Section Appeal has no merit in it and is accordingly dismissed with costs.
4. Appeal dismissed.