BANDARU SYAMSUNDER
D. Latcharao – Appellant
Versus
B. Suramma – Respondent
JUDGMENT:
BANDARU SYAMSUNDER, J.
1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 617 of 1987 on the file of District Munsif, Rajahmundry is the appellant herein. The first respondent is the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 4 are defendants 2 to 4 in the suit filed by the plaintiff.
2. The first respondent/plaintiff instituted the suit against the appellant and respondents 2 to 4 for partition of plaint schedule house property bearing Dr. No. 1-60 situated in Kunavaram Agraharam, Kothaveru Central Street, Seethanagaram Mandal, Korukonda of East Godavari District, into two equal shares and allot one such share to her and to award future profits from the date of suit till the date of separate possession of her share.
3. The first respondent/plaintiff averred that herself, one Dulam Gangamma, who is mother of appellant and respondents 2 to 4 and one Kothapalli Rattamma are real sisters, who are daughters of one Vapuri Atchamma and Mr.Ganganna. She pleaded that respondents 2 to 4 are sisters of appellant/D1 and plaint schedule property is self-acquired property of her father Mr. Ganganna, who died leaving plaint schedule property and agricultural land to an extent of Ac. 1.83 cents. The first respondent/p
Rajinder Singh vs. State of J&K
Suraj Bhan vs. Financial Commissioner
Suman Verma vs. Union of India
T. Ravi vs. B. Chinna Narasimha
Balwant Singh vs. Daulat Singh (D) by LRs. (1997) 7 SCC 137
Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar vs. Arthur Import and Export Co. (2019) 3 SCC 191
Mohammad Baqar and Others vs. Naimun Nisa Bibi and Others
THE POSSESSION OF ONE CO-SHARER IS POSSESSION OF ALL CO-SHARERS AND WHEN ONE SHARER IS CLAIMING EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION, HE MUST CLEARLY ESTABLISH THE OUSTER OF THE CO-SHARER AS A CO-OWNER HAS AN INTERE....
The judgment emphasizes that possession by one co-sharer does not constitute adverse possession, and mutation in revenue records does not establish ouster. The need for evidence to prove adverse poss....
Co-owners of a property have an unequivocal right to seek partition regardless of physical possession or claims of exclusive ownership.
Non-alienating coparceners are not bound by the alienation of the other co-owners.
Proper proof of execution of documents and the significance of registration and specific denial of execution are crucial in determining ownership of properties.
A valid oral partition must be substantiated with evidence; unproven claims lead to invalidation of subsequent property transactions.
A party who has relinquished their rights in joint family properties cannot later claim partition or execute a will regarding those properties.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.