Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
Polu Nasaramma, D/o. Late Nasara Reddy @ Narasaiah – Appellant
Versus
Atla Nasaramma, W/o. Peda Ramireddy – Respondent
Judgment :
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 17-12-2011 in A.S.No.203 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28-4-2010 in O.S.No.39 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Darsi.
2. The appellant herein is the minor defendant, represented by her next friend guardian and later she was declared as major by discharging the guardian vide Court order dated 27-6-2017 in S.A.M.P.No.2009/2016 and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.39 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Darsi.
3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.39 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, for preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of plaint schedule properties by metes and bounds into two equal shares and to allot one such share to her.
4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, decreed the suit with costs, passing a preliminary decree for partition of the suit properties into two equal shares and one such share shall be given to the plaintiff. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant in the
The possession of property by a co-owner does not amount to adverse possession against other co-owners unless clear ouster is proven.
The court affirmed that co-owners retain rights unless clear ouster is proven, and limitation laws do not apply to partition claims under the Hindu Succession Act.
Possession of one co-parcener is deemed possession of all; mere long possession does not establish adverse possession without evidence of ouster.
A claim for partition can prevail despite long possession by others if there is insufficient proof of ouster or adverse possession against a co-parcener. Limitation Act principles apply to claims acc....
Parties must prove their title claims in property disputes, and long-standing adverse possession can extinguish demand for title.
A co-parcener's possession is presumed to be joint; mere exclusive possession by another does not constitute adverse possession without evidence of hostile intent, supporting the right to partition.
A second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC can only be admitted if substantial questions of law arise; in this case, no such questions were found.
The court affirmed that daughters are entitled to equal shares in ancestral properties post-amendment, invalidating wrongful transactions made without their consent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the acceptance of evidence and facts regarding earlier oral partition and relinquishment of share, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's suit....
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
