Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
Sangili – Appellant
Versus
Jeyakodi - Respondent
S.A.(MD).No.199 of 2023 and C.M.P.(MD)No.3686 of 2024
Decided on : 21-03-2024
LIMITATION - Partition and Legal Heirship - Civil Procedure Code, Section 100; Limitation Act, Articles 65, 110 - The court interpreted Articles 65 and 110 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing that the limitation period for filing a suit for partition does not commence until the paternity issue is resolved. The court concluded that the plaintiff's right to sue for partition was valid as the paternity issue had not been decided until the trial court's judgment in 2019, thus allowing the plaintiff to claim a share in the property despite the defendants' claims of adverse possession.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit to declare herself as the legal heir of the first defendant and sought partition of the suit properties. The trial court declared the plaintiff as the legal heir but dismissed the partition claim. The first appellate court reversed this decision, leading to the defendants' second appeal, which raised the issue of limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the limitation for the plaintiff to file the suit did not begin until the paternity issue was resolved in her favor. The defendants' claims of adverse possession were rejected as the plaintiff was not excluded from the joint family property.
Issues: Whether the suit was barred by limitation due to the plaintiff's delay in filing after the notice and whether the defendants could claim adverse possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the limitation period for partition claims does not start until the legal status (paternity) is established. The court distinguished the case from precedents cited by the defendants, affirming that mere issuance of notice does not extinguish the plaintiff's rights.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, affirming the first appellate court's decision that the plaintiff is entitled to a partition of her share in the properties.
JUDGMENT :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Decree dated 29.06.2022 passed in A.S.No.1 of 2020 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar and partly reversing the Judgment and Decree, dated 13.08.2019, passed in O.S.No.155 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Sub-Court, Srivilliputhur.
The defendants are the appellants herein and the plaintiff is the respondent in the present second appeal. For the sake of convenience, the ranking in the suit is referred in the present second appeal.
2. The suit is filed to declare the plaintiff as the legal heir of the first defendant, then to divide the suit schedule properties and grant ¼ share, to appoint Advocate Commissioner to the divide the properties in metes and bounds and to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from encumbering the suit schedule properties until the final decree is passed in the partition application. After considering the evidence and the deposition of the parties, the Trial Court had allowed the suit as far as the prayer of declaration to declare the plaintiff as the legal heir of the first defendant. However, dismissed the suit as far as prayer of partition and to grant ¼ share in the suit schedule property and aggrieved over the same the plaintiff had preferred the first appeal. The defendants had suffered a decree as far as the plea of legal heir is concerned, but has not preferred any appeal. The First Appellate Court had allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants had preferred the present second appeal. Since the defendants had not preferred any appeal against the finding that the plaintiff is the legal heir of the first defendant, the finding that the plaintiff is the legal heir of the first defendant had attained finality. Now the defendants have preferred this appeal against the judgment of the First Appellate Court for granting of partition of one fourth share in the suit schedule property.
3. The present second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:
<<<<<<<<<<
AI
The limitation for filing a partition suit does not commence until the legal heirship or paternity is established, and mere passage of time does not extinguish the rights of a co-owner.
The court affirmed that daughters are entitled to equal shares in ancestral properties post-amendment, invalidating wrongful transactions made without their consent.
Point of law: “Conduct of indifference or Acquiescence and held that, it is settled law that an estoppel may arise as against persons who have not willfully made any misrepresentation, and whose cond....
A suit for partition filed after the limitation period is barred; knowledge of exclusion triggers the 12-year limit under the Limitation Act. Ancestral property cannot be alienated unilaterally by a ....
A co-parcener's possession is presumed to be joint; mere exclusive possession by another does not constitute adverse possession without evidence of hostile intent, supporting the right to partition.
The court affirmed that co-owners retain rights unless clear ouster is proven, and limitation laws do not apply to partition claims under the Hindu Succession 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
