Back
S. SOUNTHAR
Narasimha Bhattar – Appellant
Versus
Venkatesan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree of the learned II Additional District Judge, Trichy, dated 19.07.2001 in A.S. No. 334 of 1999 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Trichy, dated 09.07.1999.
1. The 1st defendant in the suit for partition is the appellant.
2. The suit filed by the respondents 1 to 5 was decreed by the trial Court and the findings of the trial Court were affirmed by the first appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the 1st defendant is before the Court.
3. According to the respondents 1 to 5/plaintiffs, the suit property originally belongs to one Lakshmi Ammal. She executed a settlement deed, dated 20.05.1936 marked as Exhibit A.1 giving life estate in favour of her daughter Seshammal with vested remainder to Seshammal’s grant children Srinivasa Bhattar and Jeyalakshmi @ Pitchammal. The respondents 1 to 5 are the children of the said Jeyalakshmi @ the Pitchammal. The appellant and other respondents are children of above said Srinivasa Bhattar. Thus, claiming half share in the suit properties, the suit for part
The necessity of proving documents under the Evidence Act is critical in partition suits, impacting the validity of claims based on unproven documents.
The validity and binding nature of the settlement deed, the requirement of proof of execution under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the applicability of the Hindu Succession Act were centr....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of secondary evidence under the Indian Evidence Act and the requirement for foundational evidence before admitting secondary evid....
The main legal point established is the requirement to prove a Will as per the provisions of the Indian Succession Act and the Indian Evidence Act, and the distinction between a Settlement deed and a....
Family settlements on property distribution among heirs are legally enforceable, and prior dismissal of partition does not bar enforcing such settlements.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the admissibility and proof of a Will should adhere to the mandate prescribed under the Evidence Act, and examination of attesting witnesses i....
The validity of a Will can be upheld despite procedural omissions if supported by sufficient evidence, and a partition suit may be dismissed if barred by limitation.
A partition deed made in good faith to resolve family disputes is legally binding, and claims of ownership must adhere to existing rights.
The 1961 partition deed, once accepted, overrides earlier settlement claims, establishing statutory sanctity and barring challenges due to lack of timely action.
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
