Back
V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
V. R. Sola @ S. Venkateswara Rao – Appellant
Versus
S. Venkata Narasimha Rao – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellant/plaintiff challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 27.04.1998, in O.S. No.5 of 1992 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole [for short ‘the trial Court’]. The Respondents herein are the defendants in the said Suit.
The learned counsel for appellant filed a memo on 14.08.2024 stating that the first defendant being the father of appellant died on 04.02.2001. The case of the appellant is that the appellant is the only legal heir to his father i.e., the first defendant, the appellant is on record in the appeal itself.
2. The appellant/plaintiff filed the Suit for partition and separate possession of item Nos.1 to 4 of plaint schedule property into two equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff and for costs of the suit.
3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.
4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.5 of 1992, are as under:
The plaintiff is the son of the first defe
A Karta of a joint family can validly alienate property for legal necessity or benefit of the estate, binding all coparceners.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding nature of a sale deed executed by the family manager, the entitlement of daughters to ancestral property under the Amended Hindu Succes....
The necessity to provide evidence of entitlement to ancestral property and the importance of including all relevant parties in a partition suit.
The burden of proving legal necessity for the alienation of ancestral property lies on the alienee, and the transaction must be for the family's benefit, binding all undivided family members.
The main legal point established is the application of Sec. 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, the exclusion of contrary evidence, and the principles of Hindu Law regarding co-parcenary property and....
The burden of proof lies on the Plaintiff to establish the properties as joint family property and the purchase of specific items from joint family income. The Plaintiff is bound by the acts of the 1....
The court upheld the trial court's order for a temporary injunction, emphasizing that issues of joint family property versus self-acquisition necessitate thorough examination during trial.
The court affirmed that the property was self-acquired by the plaintiff's husband, rejecting claims of joint family ownership due to lack of evidence.
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
