Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
Renganayagi – Appellant
Versus
N. Kandasamy and Others – Respondents
S.A. Nos. 77, 655 of 2012, M.P. No. 1 of 2012
Decided On : 01-03-2024
Code of Civil Procedure - Partition Suit - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 8 - Ex.B.2 - Neelayadakshi's Property - 1/3rd Share - Legal Heirs - Adverse Possession - Ouster - Necessary Parties - Additional Evidence - Substantial Questions of Law
Fact of the Case:
The suit involved a partition and separate possession claim for 1/3rd shares in a property. The plaintiff claimed entitlement as a legal heir of Neelayadakshi, while the defendants contested based on adverse possession, ouster, and non-maintenance of necessary parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first Appellate Court erred in relying on Ex.B.2 without framing points for consideration and without additional evidence. The findings of the first Appellate Court were unsustainable, and the judgment and decree of the trial Court were restored.
Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement of the parties to the property, adverse possession, ouster, non-maintenance of necessary parties, and the reliance on Ex.B.2 without proper framing of points for consideration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the first Appellate Court's reliance on Ex.B.2 without framing points for consideration and without additional evidence was erroneous, leading to unsustainable findings.
Final Decision: Both the Second Appeals were allowed, the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court were set aside, and the judgment and decree of the trial Court were restored. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: These second appeals are filed under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2011 made in A.S. No. 53 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Mayiladurai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2009 made in O.S. No. 89 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sirkali and allow the second appeal.
1. Since the issue involved in both the second appeals, is same, this common judgment is being delivered.
2. The appellant in S.A. No. 77 of 2012 is the plaintiff in the suit and the appellant in S.A. No. 655 of 2012 is the second defendant in the suit in O.S. No. 89 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sirkali.
The second defendant sailed along with the plaintiff and both are claiming 1/3rd share in the suit property.
3. It is a suit for partition and separate possession claiming 1/3rd shares in the suit properties by the plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to, as they are ranked before the trial Court.
4. Averments made in the plaint, in brief, are as follows:
5. The Plaintiff has also issued a legal notice to the first defendant on 13.03.98 demanding for her 1/3 share. But he refused and notice was also issued to the District Collector of Nagapattinam District, Revenue Divisional Officer, Mayiladuthurai and the Tahsildar, Porayar, not to alienate the suit property. The first defendant as if, he is the only owner of the suit property, got the compensation amount under the acquisition proceedings for Samathuvapuram project. The first defendant gave a false reply and the officials also gave a reply and they are filed before the trial Court. The Plaintiff and defendants are deemed to be in joint possession of the suit property. Since the properties are not partitioned, the plaintiff claims 1/3 share and separate possession as legal heir of the deceased Neelayadakshi Ammal.
6. The case of the 1st defendant as per the written statement in brief is as follows: The suit property is not available for partition.
The suit for partition filed after 50 years, is not maintainable against the 1st defendant. It is false to state that Neelayadakshi Ammal, wife of Subramanian Chettiar purchased the suit property for due consideration. The suit property is in the 1st defendant's possession and enjoyment for the past 50 years i.e., from the year 1948 onwards. The 1st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the property continuously without any interruption openly and paying the kist and other taxes to Government. The Government records and other transactions stands in the name of 1st defendant for past 50 years. The Patta stands in the name of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff also accepted that the 1st defendant's title and possession in the suit property is open, continuous for the past 50 years. Fo
The main legal point established was the requirement for proper framing of points for consideration and the need for additional evidence when relying on documents such as Ex.B.2 in reaching a decisio....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of evidence in establishing the nature of the suit property and the entitlement to seek relief by way of partition, as well as the i....
In property disputes, properties obtained through partition are considered self-acquired, affirming the right of absolute ownership and the validity of subsequent transfers unless proven otherwise.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that properties derived by the father through a partition deed are to be treated as his self-acquired properties, as per Section 8 of the Hindu Suc....
The court affirmed that items 1 and 2 of suit properties are ancestral, and items 3 to 11 are self-acquired, highlighting the plaintiffs' burden to prove family property claims.
Oral transfers of property are invalid without formal documentation; joint heirs maintain equal ownership rights upon intestate succession.
A son born from a void marriage has rights to inheritance under amendments to the Hindu Succession Act, affirming equal status to legitimate and illegitimate children in claims for partition post the....
Joint family property is presumed until proven otherwise; prior partition must be established by metes and bounds to be valid.
In the absence of established oral partition, co-owners have equal shares in the property, as per Section 47 of the Transfer of Property Act.
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
