Back
G. ARUL MURUGAN
Natarajan – Appellant
Versus
Elangovan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2022 made in AS.No.56 of 2021 on the file of Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri, reversing the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2021 made in OS.No.163 of 2017 on the file of Subordinate Court, Uthangarai.)
1. The defendant in the suit is the appellant before this Court on appeal. The Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2022 in AS.No.56 of 2021 on the file of Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri, reversing the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2021 in OS.No.163 of 2017 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the ranking before the Trial Court.
3. According to the plaintiff, the suit property along with other property are Government Tharisu lands. The plaintiff's grandfather Subramanya Gounder leveled the lands and carried on cultivation and had been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The plaintiff and his grandfather Subramanya Gounder without any intervention or disturbance of any of the parties had been carrying on cultivation. Subramanya Gounder had five
The burden of proof in establishing the existence and extent of an oral partition lies with the party claiming such partition.
The burden of proof for claims of oral partition lies with the party asserting it, and failure to establish legal ownership results in dismissal of the suit.
The absence of conclusive evidence for a prior partition entitles the plaintiff to a share in joint family properties, reaffirming the principle that the burden of proof lies with the defendants.
The court ruled that an oral partition was established and the plaintiff cannot claim partial partition without including all relevant properties, adhering to heirs' rights under Hindu law.
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.
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.
The court upheld that evidence of prior oral partition negates subsequent claims for joint ownership and emphasizes the need for comprehensive evidence when seeking partition in familial disputes.
The burden of proof regarding partition, the reliance on revenue records and patta, and the presumption of joint-ness in the absence of proof of partition were central legal principles established in....
The burden of proof in establishing joint family property and partition lies with the party alleging its existence. The court also emphasized the entitlement of daughters to share in joint Hindu fami....
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
