Back
G. JAYACHANDRAN
Uthandi – Appellant
Versus
Srinivasan – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Appeal Suit has been filed under Section 96 C.P.C., praying against the order and decree of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tiruvannamalai dated 12.08.2015 made in L.A.O.P.No.1/2013.)
1. The 2nd claimant/Uthandi in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2013 claiming share in the compensation awarded by the Highways Department for the well acquired in S.No.280/1B2A, is the appellant herein. The 1st claimant/Srinivasan, who is the co-owner is the 1st respondent herein
2. The crux of the appeal is that the National Highways Department acquired vast extend of land for their project which includes the land belongs to family of Gopal Gounder family. An award was passed for a sum of Rs.30,66,124 in respect of 2nd item (Well) jointly owned by the claimants. Due to the dispute between the claimants regarding the apportionment of the compensation, the 2nd claimant/Uthandi being aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal has preferred this appeal.
3. According to the appellant, the suit property originally belong to Gopal Gounder. It is a joint family property consisting of Gopal Gounder and his sons Kothandaraman, Uthandi and Srinivasan. On 27.06.1984, there was a partition between family members where
The failure to follow mandatory procedures in transferring land titles renders such transfers invalid, preserving the rights of the original pattadar.
The court emphasized that documentary evidence is crucial in establishing title in land acquisition disputes and upheld the principle that compensation is due only to the rightful title holder.
The burden of proof lies on defendants in property disputes involving claimed oral partitions; failure to adequately prove exclusive entitlement resulted in dismissing their claims.
The presumption of equal partition among co-owners and the burden of proof lies with the party asserting a claim to property, as established under Section 101 of the Evidence Act.
The court established that the lands had already been divided, and the right of the parties defined, precluding repartition.
The court ruled that an oral partition was established and the plaintiff cannot claim partial partition without including all relevant properties, adhering to heirs' rights under Hindu law.
Compensation for acquired land must be equitably apportioned between pattadars and possessors based on established rights and evidence of ownership.
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
