K. MURALI SHANKAR
S. L. Mothi Lal – Appellant
Versus
S. L. Kupplusamy(died) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
PRAYER:- Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against common judgment dated 09.04.2008, rendered in O.S.No.60 of 2006, on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ramanathapuram.
PRAYER:- Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against common judgment dated 09.04.2008, rendered in O.S.No.31 of 2007, on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ramanathapuram.
These Appeal Suits are directed against the common judgment passed in O.S.No.60 of 2006 and O.S.No.31 of 2007, dated 09.04.2008, on the file of the Additional District and Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram.
2. The suit in O.S.No.60 of 2006 is for partition. The suit in O.S.No.31 of 2007 is for permanent injunction.
3. The facts not in dispute are:
(i) One S.K.Lakshmi Narayanan had two wives and through his first wife Padmavathy, he had three sons – the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 and a daughter – third defendant. After the death of the first wife Padmavathy, he married the fourth defendant – Anusuya @ Lakshmi Ammal and through her, he had a son - 8th defendant and four daughters
D.Vijayalakshmi Vs. V.Hariselvan reported in 2020(3) CTC 438
M.N.Abdul Jabbar Sahib Vs. H.V.Venkata Sastri and sons and others reported in AIR 1969 SC 1147
Naresh Charan Das Gupta Vs. Paresh Charan Das Gupta reported in AIR 1955 SC 363
Maria Stella and others Vs. T.Joseph Catherine and others reported in (2002)3 MLJ 111
The judgment clarified that under the Hindu Succession Act, daughters are entitled to coparcenary rights, and properties can shift from separate to joint family status upon the birth of a son, impact....
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....
The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish that the properties are ancestral, and evidence must be pleaded and proved through evidence.
The judicial presumption of joint ownership requires proof of a family nucleus, and mere existence of a joint family does not automatically classify all properties as joint.
Existence of an unregistered family arrangement deed does not confer partition rights absent proper registration and stamp duty where required by law.
Properties inherited from a divided father are considered separate and not ancestral, affecting claims for partition under Hindu law.
The court affirmed that the plaintiff, as a coparcener by birth, is entitled to a ½ share in ancestral properties under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and ruled against the validity of transactions ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.