Back
S. SOUNTHAR
A. Bains – Appellant
Versus
Daisy – 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. 103 of 2004, dated 3.10.2005, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 64 of 1999, dated 15.07.2004 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram.
1. The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S. No. 103 of 2004, dated 3.10.2005, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 64 of 1999, dated 15.07.2004, on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram.
2. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. The suit is for partition. The suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiff were dismissed by the Courts below. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court.
3. According to the appellant/Plaintiff, the suit property originally belong to his father Appavu Nadar. The first defendant is the mother of the plaintiff. The second defendant is his brother. The defendants 3 to 5 are his sisters. The father of the parties Appavu Nadar died in the year 1963. Accord
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 court established that claims of oral partition require substantial evidence, and the burden of proof lies with the party asserting such claims.
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 burden of proof in establishing the existence and extent of an oral partition lies with the party claiming such partition.
The court ruled that an oral partition was established and the plaintiff cannot claim partial partition without including all relevant properties, adhering to heirs' rights under Hindu law.
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
