Back
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
S. Ramayya (Deceased) – Appellant
Versus
N. Lakshmayya (Deceased) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A. The Appeals:
1. These Appeal Suits and Cross Objection arise out of the common judgment and decree, dated 04.08.1997, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur in O.S.No.471 of 1996 and in O.S.No.141 of 1996 and as such, are taken up for disposal together by this Common Judgment.
B. The brief facts leading to the litigation are :
2. (i) One Ramayya, Lakshmanayya and Narayanappa were brothers. Their parents died at a very young age. Ramayya, the eldest in the family was the kartha of the family. It is admitted that suit ‘A’ Schedule properties are their ancestral properties. ‘B’ Schedule properties are purchased in the name of Ramayya, the Kartha. ‘C’ Schedule properties are purchased in the name of his son, Ellappa. The siblings, lived truly as a Joint Hindu Undivided Family, for a long time and finally, a dispute arose in the year 1991 – 1992, when properties were purchased in the name of Ellappa, son of Ramayya, the Kartha, when they were all aged more than 70 years.
(ii) The three brothers agreed that the partition be effected by appointing Panchayatars and a Muchalika was also written on 16.06.1992 to leave the disputes to their decision.
(iii) It is at this stage
The properties purchased by the kartha will be presumed to be ancestral properties unless proved otherwise by the kartha.
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 ....
Daughters became coparceners under Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989, allowing them equal rights in joint family properties.
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting self-acquisition in joint family property, which is subject to partition among co-owners.
In a partition suit, the burden of proving that property standing in an individual's name is joint family property lies upon the party asserting it, requiring proof of a sufficient ancestral nucleus.....
The burden of proof in establishing the nature of property under Hindu law rests on the party asserting its joint family character. The concept of a nucleus from which properties are acquired and the....
The plaintiff must prove the existence of a joint family nucleus to establish claims over joint family properties; mere relation does not imply entitlement.
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 judgment establishes that the burden of proof rests on the party claiming property as joint family property, and without sufficient evidence of a joint family nucleus, properties acquired remain ....
The court affirmed the joint family status and the trial court's ruling on partition, rejecting claims of prior oral partition due to insufficient evidence.
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
