A. P. THAKER
Nagben D/o. Vithalbhai Motibhai – Appellant
Versus
Bhikhabhai Ranchhodbhai – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The Second Appeal has been preferred by the Original-plaintiff being aggrieved with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Bharuch dated 22.07.1998 in Regular Civil Appeal No.24 of 1993 to the extent allowing the appeal of the respondents.
2. The brief facts leading to this Second Appeal are that the appellant filed the suit being R.C.S No.396/1987 for getting her share in movable as well as immovable properties namely the agricultural land bearing Block No. 523, 591, 469, 30, 73, 356 and one house bearing No.1/62 and the property no.1/63. It was the case of the appellant-plaintiff that the aforesaid properties were ancestral properties, in which her father viz Vithalbhai Motibhai had one share and she is only legal heir of the deceased father, who expired on 09.02.1986, the said share of her father should be given to her.
2.1. It was also contended that the house bearing No.1/59 being self acquired property of her father, she should be declared sole owner of the said property.
3. The defendants have denied the case of the appellant by filing written statement at Exh.12 and resisted the suit on all grounds.
3.1. It is contended by the defendants tha
plea of partition based on oral evidence alone cannot be accepted and it is to be rejected out rightly. Hence, in absence of such evidence, it is to be presumed that the plaintiff-Appellant has one h....
The presumption of joint family property necessitates proof of individual ownership; without such proof, a child has a right to claim share in ancestral property.
The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish that the properties are ancestral, and evidence must be pleaded and proved through evidence.
Joint family property is presumed until proven otherwise; prior partition must be established by metes and bounds to be valid.
Ancestral properties must be proven to remain joint family properties post-partition; otherwise, they are deemed separate and not subject to partition claims.
A co-sharer’s right to ancestral property is inherent and cannot be extinguished by absence from the parental home.
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....
In the absence of partition or relinquishment, a co-parcener cannot be said to have lost their rights over ancestral properties.
The burden of proof in establishing joint family property and partition lies with the party alleging its existence. The court also emphasized the entitlement of daughters to share in joint Hindu fami....
to approach the Civil Court for adjudicating the title in issue and when the defendant's patta had been cancelled during 1995 merely on the production of certain electricity bills and house tax recei....
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.