Back
R. SUBRAMANIAN, R. SAKTHIVEL
M. M. Kumaresan – Appellant
Versus
M. Shanmugavadivu – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
[PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.770 of 2008 dated 19.04.2017 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.
PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.65 of 2017 dated 19.04.2017 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.
PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2017 made in O.S.No.770 of 2008 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.
PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2017 made in O.S.No.65 of 2017 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.]
A.S.Nos.345 of 2017 & 898 of 2018 are arising from O.S.No.770 of 2008 on the file of ‘V- Additional District Judge, Coimbatore
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 ....
Properties claimed as self-acquired were determined to be ancestral; the appeal for partition was dismissed due to lack of joint possession evidence and non-joinder of necessary parties, also barred ....
Properties inherited from a divided father are considered separate and not ancestral, affecting claims for partition under Hindu law.
Daughters are coparceners by birth under the amended Hindu Succession Act, entitled to equal shares in ancestral properties.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that unless prior partition is established, there shall be a presumption that the property is joint family property, and a family arrangement in th....
The court ruled that an oral partition established the properties as separate and self-acquired, barring claims for partition after 18 years and validating a gift deed executed by the coparcener.
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
