Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
EASWARAN S.
Suresh, S/o.Raghavan – Appellant
Versus
Ravi [Died & Lhs Impleaded], S/o.Raghavan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
EASWARAN S., J.
The 6th defendant in O.S.No.12/2016, a suit for partition, has come up in this appeal challenging the concurrent findings rendered by the Munsiff’s Court, Chengannur, as affirmed by the Sub Court, Chengannur, in A.S.No.8/2020, by judgment dated 15.09.2021.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:
2.1. The 1st respondent – plaintiff instituted O.S.No.12/2016 before the Munsiff’s Court, Chengannur, seeking partition of the 23 Ares situated in Resurvey No.163/19 of Ennakkad Village, Chengannur Taluk. According to the plaintiff, the property was purchased in the name of the 1st defendant, who is the father, and his wife Janamma by Sale Deed No.1863/1962. At the time of execution of the sale deed, the plaintiff was a minor and was beneficiary of the sale. Subsequently, without the consent of the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 5 and their mother assigned their right of the plaint schedule property in favour of the 6th defendant by executing Settlement Deed Nos.141/2011 and 321/2013. The said settlement deeds are not binding on the plaintiff as his right to a 1/7th share over the plaint schedule property cannot be denied.
2.2. The defen
The entitlement of children to jointly owned property under the Travancore Ezhava Act does not apply to property acquired through sale deeds, as confirmed by the court's findings.
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.
The exclusion of property from a partition deed does not confer exclusive rights to the defendants; a joint statement regarding property status is binding.
A voluntary partition deed conferring rights on a female heir is valid despite prior restrictions under Hindu inheritance law, emphasizing that such arrangements, once consensually made, cannot be co....
Daughters became coparceners under Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989, allowing them equal rights in joint family properties.
The court affirmed that partition of family properties had occurred prior to 1942, establishing individual ownership rights over properties acquired post-partition, thereby negating claims of joint f....
The court clarified that ancestral property is subject to established joint family ownership principles, and oral relinquishments of property rights require substantial evidence.
Properties cannot be presumed joint family properties unless proven to derive from sufficient income or surplus of ancestral properties.
Under Marumakkathayam law, property obtained by a female and her children in partition retains its tharwad characteristics, ensuring rights for future descendants.
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
