Back
S. SOUNTHAR
Muthulakshmi – Appellant
Versus
Subbulakshmi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree made in A.S. No. 126 of 2005, dated 22.11.2005, on the file of Second ‘Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli reversing the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 597 of 2004, dated 13.09.2004, on the file of Second Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli.
1. The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S. No. 126 of 2005, dated 22.11.2005, on the file of Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli reversing the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 597 of 2004, dated 13.09.2004, on the file of Second Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli.
2. The plaintiff in the suit for partition is the appellant. The trial Court granted the decree for partition. On appeal filed by the defendant, the First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court by filing this Second Appeal.
3. According to the Plaintiff, the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff and defendant under two sale deeds, dated 05.03.1990 marked as Ex.A1 and Ex.A2.
The court established that claims of oral partition require substantial evidence, and the burden of proof lies with the party asserting such claims.
The court established that the burden of proof for oral partition lies with the party asserting it, and mere testimony from interested parties is insufficient without corroborating evidence.
The main legal point established is that the suit for partition is maintainable despite the failure to prove an earlier oral partition in the manner known to law.
For a claim of oral partition to succeed, it must be proven with sufficient evidence; inconsistencies in documentation undermine such claims.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that in the absence of proof of oral partition, co-sharers have a right in every inch of ancestral property, and exclusive possession cannot be ....
The burden of proof in establishing the existence and extent of an oral partition lies with the party claiming such partition.
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.
The burden to prove an oral partition lies with the party asserting it; mere revenue entries do not suffice to establish partition without clear evidence.
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....
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
