Back
P. B. BALAJI
Mani @ Arumugam – Appellant
Versus
Chandran – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
P.B. Balaji, J.
[PRAYER: The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 12.06.2017 passed in A.S.No.88 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode, reversing the judgment and the decree dated 15.07.2016 in O.S.No.45 of 2010 before the Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam, by allowing the second appeal].
This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 12.06.2017 in A.S.No.88 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode, reversing the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2016 in O.S.No.45 of 2010 on the file the Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam.
2. The defendants in the suit for partition are the appellants herein.
3. The parties are described as per their litigating status before the Trial Court.
4. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking partition and separate possession of 7/36 share in the suit properties, namely, Item Nos.1 and 2. The case of the plaintiff is that the 1st defendant is the father of the plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 5 and that they were members of a Hindu Joint Family. Accordingly to the plaintiff, both the above said Items of the properties were joint family pr
The court established that the burden of proof for joint family property lies with the claimant, and the admission of evidence must follow due process, allowing parties the opportunity to address con....
Properties in female Hindu's name post-Hindu Succession Act presumed self-acquired; plaintiffs bear heavy burden to prove joint family funds usage.
The presumption of joint family property does not apply if the property is proven to be self-acquired; the burden of proof lies on the claimant of joint family property.
The plaintiff must prove the existence of a joint family nucleus to establish claims over joint family properties; mere relation does not imply entitlement.
The existence of a registered partnership deed governs the relationship between parties, rendering claims for partition of joint family properties unmaintainable when no evidence of joint family owne....
The plaintiffs failed to prove that the properties were joint family properties or acquired from joint family funds, and the registered partnership deed governed the disputes requiring arbitration.
(1) Partition – Once disruption of joint family status takes place, coparceners cease to hold property as joint tenants but they hold as tenants-in-common.(2) Production of additional evidence – It i....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the burden of proving joint family properties lies with the party making the claim, and failure to challenge the evidence or provide evidence ....
In a partition suit, the burden of proving that property standing in an individual's name is joint family property lies upon the party asserting it, requiring proof of a sufficient ancestral nucleus.....
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
