Back
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA
Rajendhiran – Appellant
Versus
Muthaiammal @ Muthayee – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This application is filed by the applicant(s)/respondent(s) seeking recall of judgment dated 03.01.2024 passed in the instant Civil Appeal on the ground that the respondents in the appeal were not served.
2. Having considered the grounds taken for nonappearance, we are of the view that the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the judgment dated 03.01.2024 is recalled.
3. The appeal is taken on board.
4. Having heard both sides, we allow the Civil Appeal, in terms of the signed reportable judgment.
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal, by the defendants, assails the correctness of the judgment and order dated 28.07.2022 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras whereby the Second Appeal No.351/2021 filed by the plaintiff was allowed and the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the Sub-Judge dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-respondents were set aside and the suit was decreed.
3. Facts in nutshell are :
3.1 The respondent instituted a suit before the Munsiff Court, Tiruchengode registered as OS No.200/2011 claiming relief of declaration that the sale deed dated 10.02.2011 executed by the first defendant in f
The plaintiffs failed to prove their claims of ownership based on oral partition and a will, leading to the dismissal of their suit.
Sale-deed cannot be invalidated when there is no foundational fact to support such claim.
Remand of matter—Appellate court ought to be circumspect in ordering a remand as an uncalled for and unwarranted order of remand only gives litigation an unnecessary and undeserved long rope which is....
The court established that claims of oral partition require substantial evidence, and the burden of proof lies with the party asserting such claims.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that in the absence of proof of oral partition, co-sharers have a right in every inch of ancestral property, and exclusive possession cannot be ....
The main legal point established is that the plaintiff's possession was proved through various documents, and the first defendant had no standing to dispute the partition.
Co-owner not party to sale deed need not cancel it to claim partition of undivided share in joint family property.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
