Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SAKTHIVEL
Ganesan – Appellant
Versus
Palaniammal (Died) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated November 28, 2018 passed in A.S.No.72 of 2016 by the 'Additional District and Sessions Court, Ariyalur' ['First Appellate Court' for brevity], whereby the Judgment and Decree dated April 30, 2012 passed in O.S.No.344 of 2004 by the 'District Munsif Court, Jayankondam' ['Trial Court' for brevity] was confirmed.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.
PLAINTIFFS' CASE
3. Murugan, the first plaintiff’s husband, moved to Malaysia in his young age, where he married the first plaintiff. Their children, including late Subramaniyan and Plaintiff Nos.3 and 4, were born there. The second plaintiff is Subramaniyan’s son. Murugan and the first plaintiff sent money from Malaysia to one Ayyakkannu, who used it to purchase 5.82 Acres in Survey No. 211/1 in Murugan’s name vide two Sale Deeds dated August 28, 1940 and September 6, 1940.
3.1. Ayyakkannu managed the land for over 10 years on behalf of the first plaintiff and Murugan. Due to Ayyakkannu’s illness, the first plaintiff and Murugan entrusted the purchased property to Rathinam, the son of
The burden of proof for alleging fraud lies with the plaintiffs, who failed to establish their claims, leading to the dismissal of their suit for property recovery.
The plaintiffs failed to establish title or prove fraudulent claims regarding partition; the properties were self-acquired, thus invalidating joint ownership claims by the defendants.
The court affirmed that admissions made during trial are binding, and ancestral properties cannot be dismissed based on a registered Partition Deed that does not negate the rights of coparceners.
The court reaffirmed that for a valid partition among joint family properties, proper registration and absence of fraud are crucial, emphasizing joint possession and familial rights.
The amendment of co-parcenery rights retroactive effects and joint possession presumption prevent claims of ouster without substantial evidence.
The court reaffirmed that a sale deed executed for family and legal necessity by a joint family member is binding, barring challenge by family members after significant delay without sufficient cause....
Registered partition deed between brothers under Mohammedan law creates valid title; High Court cannot re-appreciate facts absent substantial question of law in second appeal.
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
