US Constitution Trumps Presidential Tariff Powers
28 Feb 2026
Non-Compliance with Court Summons Amounts to Contempt: Allahabad HC Issues Warrant Against HDFC Life Branch Head in Cheating Bail Case
02 Mar 2026
Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
C. KUMARAPPAN
Bagampriyal (Died) – Appellant
Versus
C. Suseela – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.6 of 2016, dated 23.12.2016, on the file of the District Court, Sivagangai, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.77 of 2007, dated 01.02.2016, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Sivagangai.)
1. The appellants 1 & 2 herein are the respondents/ defendants and the respondent herein is the appellant / plaintiff before the trial Court. The appellants 3 & 4 are the legal heirs of the deceased appellants 1 & 2.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
3. The brief averments of the plaint is as follows:-
The suit schedule property was originally purchased by the plaintiff's father-in-law – Chellam Nadar, vide sale deed, dated 17.02.2003 from one Senthil. Ever since the date of sale deed, he has been in actual phys
The burden of proof lies on the party alleging the existence of joint family property to demonstrate the sufficient joint family nucleus, and the presumption is that property held by the Kartha is jo....
The burden of proof is on the party asserting that the property is joint family property, and unless the foundational facts are established, the property will be deemed to be the self-acquired proper....
The existence of a joint family does not suffice to declare property as joint family property without proof of surplus income used for acquisition.
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.
The plaintiff must prove the existence of a joint family nucleus to establish claims over joint family properties; mere relation does not imply entitlement.
A property must reflect active participation from all family members to be considered joint family property; claims based on mere assertions are insufficient for legal recognition.
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.