Back
G. ARUL MURUGAN
Valliammal – Appellant
Versus
Visalakshi (Deceased) W/o. C. Velusamy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2009 passed in A.S. No.135 of 2000 on the file of First Additional District Judge of Coimbatore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2000 made in O.S. No.139 of 1991 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur.
The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant in the above appeal. The second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 3.8.2009 in AS.No.135 of 2000 on the file of First Additional District Judge of Coimbatore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2000 in OS.No.139 of 1991 on the file of Sub ordinate judge, Tiruppur. The first and second defendants died pending suit and the defendants 3 to 10 were impleaded as legal heirs in the suit.
2. Pending appeal, the first respondent died and respondents 2 to 4 have been recorded as legal heirs. The fifth respondent also died and the respondents 6 to 8 have been recorded as his legal heirs. Further, the 8th respondent in the appeal also died and the respondents 9 to 11 have been impleaded as his legal heirs.
3. For the sake of convenience,
A co-parcener under Mitakshara law cannot unilaterally dispose of ancestral property without the consent of other co-parceners, and a deed executed as a gift of ancestral property is invalid.
The properties in question were determined to be ancestral, granting coparcenary rights to the daughter under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
The court established the principle that under the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 1/1990, a daughter is entitled to her share in ancestral property, and any disposition or alienation without her consent is....
A Karta under Mitakshara law cannot alienate joint family property via a Will; it is a family arrangement. Possession under a void document can lead to adverse possession if maintained for the requis....
A coparcener cannot execute a settlement deed favoring non-coparceners without consent, rendering it void; however, a sale executed by the Kartha for family necessity is valid and binding on minor co....
The 1961 partition deed, once accepted, overrides earlier settlement claims, establishing statutory sanctity and barring challenges due to lack of timely action.
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
