Appointment to Higher Post on Compassionate Grounds Not a Matter of Right: J&K&L High Court
07 Mar 2026
Nearly Decade-Long Delay in Patnitop Illegal Construction PIL Appalls J&K&L High Court; Directs PDA CEO to Join Proceedings
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Supreme Court Orders No-Fault Vaccine Compensation Policy
11 Mar 2026
Maintenance to Wife Should Not Encourage Idleness or Be Excessive: Gujarat HC Reduces Family Court Enhancement under CrPC Ss.125,127
11 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J
E.T. Mohanan S/o. Late Theethan – Appellant
Versus
Pankajakshy W/o. Late Theethan – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J.
1. These appeals arise from O.S No.345/2004 of the Principal Sub Court Palakkad, which was filed for partition of A & B schedule properties. The plaintiff is the appellant in both the appeals. Even though partition is sought with respect to plaint A and B Schedule properties, B schedule property was later deleted with leave to institute a fresh suit for the same. The properties included in Plaint A Schedule are the properties included in the C schedule of Ext.A11 Partition Deed dt. 10.02.1973.
2. Admitted facts are that the parties belonged to Hindu Ezhava community. Raman, grandfather of the plaintiff, had three sons- Rakkandi, Kittu, and Theethan (1st defendant). His wife was Nagunni. Raman died around 1952. The plaintiff is the son of 1st defendant. The plaintiff and his sisters, who are the defendants 6 to 8, are the children of the 1st defendant in his first marriage with Janaki. On the death of Janaki, the 1st defendant married the 2nd defendant, and the defendants 3 to 5 are
The presumption of joint family property applies unless proven otherwise, and the burden of proof lies on the party asserting separation.
The burden of proof lies on asserting self-acquisition when joint family property is claimed, as evidenced in the judgment affirming the trial court's findings on property character.
The plaintiff must prove the existence of a joint family nucleus to establish claims over joint family properties; mere relation does not imply entitlement.
In joint family property disputes, a claimant asserting self-acquisition must provide substantial proof, while joint ancestral claims are upheld unless clearly disproven.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that properties acquired from individual earnings of family members cannot be treated as joint family properties unless deliberate abandonment and ....
The courts erred in determining property status, failing to recognize that once a joint family is established, the burden shifts to defendants to prove self-acquisition.
Daughters became coparceners under Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989, allowing them equal rights in joint family properties.
A party claiming self-acquisition of property within a joint family must provide substantial evidence; failure to do so, combined with existing partition evidence, undermines their claims.
The court clarified that properties must be inherited or acquired from a joint family nucleus to be classified as ancestral under Hindu law, rejecting claims based solely on joint acquisition.
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
Listen Article