Back
N. SATHISH KUMAR
Mathivanan – Appellant
Versus
Deivanai (Died) – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(PRAYER: This Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree of the learned Sub Judge, Pattukottai, dated 14.02.1991 made in O.S.No.55 of 1987.)
1. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the suit in respect of ''A'' schedule property and item Nos.1 and 2 of ''B'' schedule property, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per their rank before the Trial Court.
3. The brief facts, leading to the filing of this Appeal, are as follows:-
3.1. The suit properties are joint family property of the plaintiff''s father consisting of the plaintiff and his father one Singaram. The first defendant is the mother of the plaintiff and the wife of the said Singaram. Second defendant is the mother of Singaram i.e., paternal grandmother of the plaintiff. Defendants 3 and 4 are purchaser of the ''A'' schedule properties. Defendants 5 to 9 were impleaded as legal heirs of the third defendant in the suit. It is the case of the plaintiff that his father Singaram was addicted to alcohol and he was leading a wayward life. He never cared for the welfare of the plaintiff, who was minor at th
Point of law: “Conduct of indifference or Acquiescence and held that, it is settled law that an estoppel may arise as against persons who have not willfully made any misrepresentation, and whose cond....
No court permission is required for a Karta to sell joint family property when such sale is established as for family necessity under Hindu law, even involving minor interests.
The burden of proving legal necessity for the alienation of ancestral property lies on the alienee, and the transaction must be for the family's benefit, binding all undivided family members.
The validity of a sale deed in the context of family necessity and the application of limitation periods under the Limitation Act, 1963.
In joint family property disputes, a guardian may transact on behalf of minors without court sanction, provided sales serve family interests.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding nature of a sale deed executed by the family manager, the entitlement of daughters to ancestral property under the Amended Hindu Succes....
The court established that a sale of ancestral property requires clear evidence of family necessity to be binding on co-owners, and the limitation period for challenging such sales is twelve years un....
When suit is barred by limitation, same ought to have been considered by First Appellate Court.
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
