Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J
Lakshmi, D/o. Murkath Sreedevi Amma – Appellant
Versus
Vijayasankaran, S/o. Murkath Sreedevi Amma – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. partition of thavazhi properties (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. contest of the second defendant (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. claims of the second defendant (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. trial court's dismissal of the suit (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. supreme court's remand for reconsideration (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. additional evidence introduced post-remand (Para 13 , 14) |
| 7. arguments regarding partition and evidence (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J.
1. Appellants are the plaintiff Nos.3 & 4 in the suit. The respondents are the plaintiffs 1, 2, 5 & 6 and the defendants 6 to 13. The suit was filed for the partition of Plaint A & B schedule properties. There are 12 items of immovable properties in the plaint A schedule property and 9 items of movable properties in the plaint B schedule.
2. Plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties on the allegations that the plaint A schedule properties are a school and appurtenant land under the co-ownership and joint possession of the plaintiffs and the defendants who are the members of Thavazhi of the first defendant governed by Madras Marumakkathayam Rule of Succession applicable to the Nair community. A partition was effected among the Thavazhi m
The principle of res judicata does not apply when the subject matter of the current suit is distinct from that of a previous suit, allowing for partition of properties not included in earlier judgmen....
The presumption of joint family status in Hindu law requires clear evidence to establish prior partition; the Appellate Court allowed partition of one property acquired post-partition while dismissin....
In a suit for partition, all necessary parties and joint family properties must be included. If the suit is incomplete, the court should defer the judgment and allow the plaintiff to include the omit....
The court affirmed that items 1 and 2 of suit properties are ancestral, and items 3 to 11 are self-acquired, highlighting the plaintiffs' burden to prove family property claims.
The power of attorney holder cannot testify on behalf of the principal, and prior partition claims were upheld due to lack of evidence from the plaintiff.
A Second Appeal lacks merit if it raises factual disputes already resolved by lower courts and does not present a substantial question of law.
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
