Back
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
P. Konreddy (Deceased) – Appellant
Versus
P. Sellammal – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: First Appeal filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the judgment and decree dated 08.03.2011 in O.S.No.169 of 2009 on the file of Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.1), Salem.)
1. The defendants in the Suit aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Salem dated 08.03.2011 in O.S.No.169 of 2009 have filed the present Appeal Suit. The Suit filed by the respondent plaintiff for partition of the suit properties and allotment of 1/3rd share and for separate possession was partly decreed by the Trial Court. In this judgment, the parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the Trial Court.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the daughter of one Perumal Reddy and Poppammal; the first and the second defendants are her brothers. The suit properties belong to their father Perumal Reddy and their mother Poppammal. Some of the properties came to her mother by way of release deed dated 26.10.1970 and some of the properties were purchased through two sale deeds dated 09.10.1970 and 20.08.1981 respectively. The said Perumal Reddy died in the year 2000 and Poppammal di
The heavy burden of proof upon the proponent of oral partition before it is accepted, as per the settled principle of law by the Apex Court.
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.
The court upheld that evidence of prior oral partition negates subsequent claims for joint ownership and emphasizes the need for comprehensive evidence when seeking partition in familial disputes.
A party pleading oral partition must establish it with convincing evidence, and inconsistent statements and lack of proof can lead to the rejection of the partition claim.
The burden of proof in establishing the existence and extent of an oral partition lies with the party claiming such partition.
The absence of conclusive evidence for a prior partition entitles the plaintiff to a share in joint family properties, reaffirming the principle that the burden of proof lies with the defendants.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the burden of proof lies on the party claiming a prior partition, and in the absence of documentary evidence, unchallenged evidence of the opp....
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
