Back
A. A. NAKKIRAN
Jothi Ramalingam – Appellant
Versus
Chokkalingam – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Appeal Suit has been filed, under Section 96 and Order 41 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2012 made in O.S.No.133 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional District cum Sessions Court, Cuddalore.)
1. This Appeal Suit has been filed challenging the judgment and decree, dated 13.07.2012, made in O.S.No.133 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional District cum Sessions Court, Cuddalore.
2. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the said suit in O.S.No.133 of 2011. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.
3. The suit was filed seeking preliminary decree of partition and separate possession of Plaintiff's 1/3 share in the suit 'B' schedule property, to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to divide the suit 'B' schedule property by metes and bounds into 3 equal shares and to allot one such share to the Plaintiff and restrain the defendants, their men and agents by a decree of permanent injunction, from in any manner interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit 'D' schedule property and for costs.
4. The c
The legal principle of adverse possession requires the claimant to provide sufficient evidence of open, hostile, and uninterrupted possession, which was not established in this case.
The legal principle established is that long and continuous possession coupled with hostile assertion of title and creation of records can amount to ouster of title, and equitable considerations shou....
The judgment establishes the importance of proving property rights and titles, the limitations of permissive possession, and the applicability of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.
The main legal point established was the requirement for proper framing of points for consideration and the need for additional evidence when relying on documents such as Ex.B.2 in reaching a decisio....
Ouster among co-sharers requires hostile animus, long exclusive possession known to other co-owner; mere possession insufficient.
The plaintiffs must prove that the property is ancestral joint family property, failing which their claim for partition will be dismissed.
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
