SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 3794

D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
D. T. Rajkapoor Sah @ Raghul Sah (Died) – Appellant
Versus
Kamakshi Bai – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr.N.Nago Sah
For the Respondents: Mr.T.Murugamanickam, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Mubarak Basha

Judgement Key Points

The conclusion of the case is that the appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the trial court. The original decree, which recognized the suit property as joint Hindu family property and entitled the plaintiffs to a share in it, was confirmed. The court found that the property was acquired by the family through joint efforts and was thus a coparcenary property, not a self-acquired or ancestral property as claimed by the defendants. Consequently, the plaintiffs are entitled to a partition of the property, with each of the seven legal heirs receiving an equal share. The trial court’s decision to decree partition and mesne profits was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed without an order as to costs (!) (!) .


JUDGMENT :

Prayer : Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI R 1 of Civil Procedure Code to allow the appeal by setting aside the decree and judgment passed on 11.01.2016 in O.S.No.2104 of 2014 on the file of the learned XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

A. The Suit :

Kamakshi Bai, Ambu Bai, Muniyamma Bai, Kuppamma Bai @ Kuchala Kumari, four sisters filed the present suit for partition for partitioning the suit property and allotment of 4/7 shares to them against their brothers D.T.Rajkapoor Sah @ Raghul Sah, D.T.Loku Sah and D.T.Rukma Sah.

B. The Plaint :

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that one Ellu Sah is the grandfather of the plaintiffs and the defendants. He had three sons namely, Thulasi Sah, Gopal Sah and Kuppa Sah. The above said father and three sons started Shellac vending business and out of the income, three properties were purchased which includes the suit property. On 07.03.1964, by a registered partition deed, the suit schedule property was allotted to the share of Thulasi Sah, the father of the plaintiffs and the defendants. The said partition deed, dated 07.03.1964 wrongly describes as if the suit property is an ancestral property. Therefor

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            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

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
            whatsapp-icon Back to top