D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
D. T. Rajkapoor Sah @ Raghul Sah (Died) – Appellant
Versus
Kamakshi Bai – Respondent
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
Rohit Chauhan Vs. Surinder Singh
Arshnoor Singh Vs. Harpal Kaur and Ors.
D.S.Lakshmaiah Vs. L.Balasubramanyam
Hiraji Tolaji Bagwan (since deceased) by his LRs. Vs. Shakuntala
N.Rajammal (Died) and Anr. Vs. P.Maragathammal and Ors.
Rajanikanta Pal Vs. Jagmohan Pal
S.Dakshina Vs. Chinnaponnu and Ors.
Shyam Narayan Prasad Vs. Krishna Prasad
Surjit Lal Chhabda Vs. CIT, (1976) 3 SCC 142
Theiry Santhanamal Vs. Viswanathan and Ors.
The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras-1 Vs. P.L.Karuppan Chettiar, Karur
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.