Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
Ramalingam – Appellant
Versus
Vinaitheerthan – Respondent
S.A. No. 1248 of 1997, C.M.P. (MD) No. 8157 of 2016, C.M.P. No. 12198 of 1997
Decided On : 07-12-2021
Second Appeal - Property Dispute - O.S. No. 336 of 1985, O.S. No. 400 of 1962 - The court discussed the legal provisions related to family partition, oral partition, and Court auction. The interpretation of Exhibit A1 partition deed, the relevance of partition lists, and the burden of proof in establishing title and possession were key in the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over certain properties, claiming entitlement based on family partition and subsequent oral partition. The trial court and first appellate court dismissed the suit, leading to the second appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish his title and possession over the properties, and the Court auction sale to the first defendant was valid. The burden of proof was on the plaintiff, and the lack of evidence regarding partition decrees and lists led to the dismissal of the appeal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the plaintiff's claim to the properties based on family and oral partition, the relevance of partition documents, and the impact of Court auction on the plaintiff's rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish title and possession. The absence of documentary evidence such as partition decrees and lists hinders the plaintiff's claim. Court auction sale is valid unless challenged.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, and the Court auction sale to the first defendant was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and order of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Devakottai in A.S. No. 57 of 1991 and dated 11.08.1993 in confirming the judgment and decree of the Court of the District Munsif, Devakottai in O.S. No. 336 of 1985 and dated 08.08.1991 in dismissing the suit.
1. The plaintiff is the appellant herein.
2. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 336 of 1985 before the District Munsif Court, Devakottai, for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed. As against the same, the plaintiff filed the A.S. No. 57 of 1991 before the Sub Court, Devakottai. The appeal was also dismissed. As against the same, the present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.
3. The plaintiff had contended that the plaintiff and his brother formed a Hindu joint family and the said joint family was a member of Senjai Nattar. The plaintiff contended that in the property of Senjai Nattar, the plaintiff's family was entitled to 1/44th share. The plaintiff further contended that the said property and other properties were partioned between the father of the plaintiff on one hand and the minor sons on the other hand, represented by her mother under Exhibit A1 partition deed. According to the plaintiff, in the said partition deed, except the share of the other co-sharers, the father's share was partitioned in entirety. The plaintiff further contended that the properties of Senjai Nattar was the subject matter of a partition suit in O.S. No. 400 of 1962. In the said suit, apart from the suit schedule property, some other properties were also allotted to the share of the plaintiffs family. In the year 1978, there was an oral partition in the family and in the said partition, the suit schedule properties were allotted to the share of the plaintiff. Though a partition list was prepared, it was misplaced by the plaintiff. The plaintiff further contended that from the year 1978 onwards, the suit schedule properties are in his possession. The plaintiff further contended that the 2nd defendant has filed O.S. No. 43 of 1970 for recovery of money against 3rd defendant. The 3rd defendant's property was brought to auction on 31.01.1985. The first defendant was the Court auction purchaser. The 3rd defendant does not have any right over the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff further contended that the Court auction held in E.P. No. 167 of 1984 will not bind the plaintiff. Hence, he prayed for a decree for declaration of title and permanent injunction.
4. The first defendant filed a written statement contending that when Exhibit A1 came into existence, the father of the plaintiff was not allotted any share in the Senjai Nattar property. A share in Senjai Nattar family was allotted to the plaintiff's family only in the year 1968 and after allotment, the suit schedule property was the separate property of the 3rd defendant. Any allottment made in favour of the 3rd defendant in O.S. No. 400 of 1962 is a separate property and the plaintiff or other sons of 3rd defendant are not entitled to any share. Hence, the suit schedule properties were rightly brought to auction for the loan borrowed by the 3rd defendant and in the Court auction sale, the 1st defendant has purchased the property.
5. The 4th defendant filed a written statement contending that neither the plaintiff nor the 1st defendant have any title or possession over the suit schedule properties. The defendants 5 and 6 filed a joint written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable and the Court auction will be binding upon the plaintiff.
6. The defendants 7 to 12 filed a written statement contending that the suit schedule properties are the obsolute properties of the first defendant. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the petition yadasthu dated 07.07.1979 has not been produced before the Court. T
The burden of proof in establishing title and possession lies with the plaintiff, and the absence of documentary evidence can weaken the claim. Court auction sales are valid unless challenged.
The burden of proof on the plaintiffs to establish the disputed properties as joint family properties and the application of settled principles of law in determining the entitlement to the properties....
The main legal point established is that the plaintiff's possession was proved through various documents, and the first defendant had no standing to dispute the partition.
A party claiming rights over property must establish their genealogical connection to the family and the validity of any documents purporting to affect ownership, particularly in light of registratio....
The presumption of joint family status in Hindu law requires clear evidence to establish prior partition; the Appellate Court allowed partition of one property acquired post-partition while dismissin....
Ancestral properties must be equitably divided between legal heirs, and failure to adjudicate claims on such properties constitutes judicial error.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the nature of the property in question, considering the implications of the Land Ceiling Act and the validity of the family....
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.
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
