SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Mad) 861

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN
R.Deivanai Ammal (Died) & Another - Appellant
Versus
G.Meenakshi Ammal & Others - Respondents
Appeal Suit No. 1133 of 1988
Decided On : 13 July 2004

Advocates Appeared: For The Appellants :AR.L. Sundaresan, Advocate. For The Respondents:R1, R3, R. Arunagirinathan, Advocates.

Burden lies on the person who claims the property as joint family property to prove the same.

Headnote:Hindu Law-Joint Family Property-person claiming the property as joint family property has to prove the same-Some properties possessed by joint family-Self acquired property when utilised as common property whether can be treated as joint family property.

Judgment :-

P. Sathasivam, J.

Plaintiff in O.S.No.62 of 1985 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga, against the dismissal of her suit has filed the above Appeal.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff/appellant herein praying for:

(a) partition of items 1 to 3 of plaint 'A' Schedule and 'B','C' and 'D' schedule properties into four equal shares and allotment of one share to the plaintiff and for partition of item 4 of 'A' schedule properties into 12 equal shares and to put the appellant in separate possession of one such share;

(b) for directing the defendants to render true and proper accounts for the income and expenses from the suit properties item 1 to 4 of 'A' schedule properties and pay plaintiff's share in the same towards past mesne profits; and

(c) to pay the plaintiff future mesne profits as may be fixed under Order XX Rule 12 C.P.C.

Since the suit was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge, the unsuccessful plaintiff has preferred the present appeal. For convenience the parties are referred as described before the trial Court.

3. The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint is briefly stated hereunder:

The plaintiff and the first defendant are daughters, and defendants 2 and 3 are sons of late Ganapathy Moopanar who died on 15-11-76. On the date of his death, he was possessed of item 4 of 'A' schedule which he received in a partition on 20-12-1948 and items 1 to 3 of 'A' schedule property which he had acquired out of his self-earned income during his life time and that he had also left behind the movable assets referred to in 'B', 'C' and 'D' schedules.

4. The plaintiff reliably learnt that her father Ganapthy Moopanar had left behind him an unregistered Will which was with the attestor under which he had directed his properties to be divided equally and that even in the absence of the Will, plaintiff being the daughter is entitled to 1/4th share in items 1 to 3 of 'A' schedule and B,C and D schedules and 1/12th share in respect of item 4 of 'A' schedule. When the plaintiff demanded for partition, the defendants were evasive and hence she issued a notice dated 30-06-1985 to the defendants. The first defendant returned the notice and defendants 2 and 3 received the notice and issued a reply dated 5-07-1985 disputing the plaintiff's claim. Hence the suit.

5. The first defendant who is the sister of plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 filed a separate written statement wherein it is contended that after the death of their father, two days later, the plaintiff and the first defendant claimed some share and a panchayat was conducted by 5 panchayatdars wherein it was decided to give Rs.8,000/-cash and 20 sovereigns of gold to the plaintiff and the first defendant each in full quit. After deliberation and agreement on 30-11-76, the panchayat athakshi was written and signed by all the panchayatdars and she had affixed her thumb impression. The concrete house in items 1 and 3 of 'A' schedule and the shop in item 2 of the 'A' schedule was constructed by defendants 2 and 3. All the assets were only joint family properties and after the father's death she had relinquished her share.

6. Defendants 2 and 3 filed a common written statement wherein it is stated that item 1 of 'A' schedule was purchased by their paternal grand father in the name of their father as a tiled house, and in the year 1974, the house was constructed by defendants 2 and 3 out of their own exertions. Item No.3 was treated as joint family property comprising of the father and defendants 2 and 3 and that it was purchased out of joint family funds and that pucca house was constructed thereon in 1980.

7. Item No.2 of 'A' schedule was treated as joint family property and six shops were constructed thereon by defendants 2 and 3 in 1967. Item No.4 of 'A' schedule was joint family ancestral property and that defendants 2 and 3 out of their exertions had put up four houses thereon in 1965 and four houses in 1970. 'B' schedule and 'C' schedule were non-existent and













































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top