Back
C. V. KARTHIKEYAN
Saraswathi – Appellant
Versus
K. Poonkothai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of CPC to set aside the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2017 in O.S.No.36 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Salem.)
1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.36 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Salem, are the appellants herein, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2017, whereby their suit, seeking partition and separate possession of the suit mentioned properties, was dismissed.
2. O.S.No.36 of 2010 had been filed by the plaintiffs / appellants herein, widow and two sons of late V.Rathinam, seeking partition and separate possession of 6/10th share of Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit properties and 1/4th share in Item No.3 of the suit property and to put them in possession and for consequential relief of injunction and for costs.
The pleadings in O.S.No.36 of 2010 (I Additional District Court, Salem):-
3. In the plaint, it had been stated that the 1st plaintiff was the daughter-in-law of the 1st defendant. The 2nd to 4th defendants were the daughters of the 1st defendant. The 5th defendant was the daughter of the 1st wife of the father-in-law of the 1st plaintiff. The 6th to 8th defendants are
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the availability of ancestral properties for partition and the rights of legal representatives in sharing the properties.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Hindu Succession Act and the determination of entitlement to shares in ancestral and self-acquired properties.
The legal principle established in the judgment emphasizes the treatment of properties allotted in a partition deed as separate properties, and the burden of proof in establishing the invalidity of s....
The main legal point established is the requirement for consistent evidence and proper pleading to establish joint family properties and entitlement to partition, emphasizing the significance of docu....
The court affirmed that ancestral property rights under the Hindu Succession Act grant a daughter the right to claim partition; a Will must be proven validly to be binding.
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....
Suit for partition - plaintiffs can have no right to seek partition of the 3rd item property. While the 2nd defendant as the owner of the property had sold the property to 3rd defendant. After receiv....
A partition deed long acted upon by all parties through possession and alienation is binding and cannot be reopened by descendants, especially when the original parties to the partition accepted the ....
In a partition suit, all legal heirs must be parties, and failing to prove a settlement deed invalidates claims to partition. The court upheld the necessity for complete participation of all heirs in....
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
