R. SAKTHIVEL
S. Mohana Sundaram – Appellant
Versus
S. Muthusamy Gounder – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated December 14, 2016 made in A.S.No.86 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Erode, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated September 23, 2014 made in O.S.No.375 of 2010 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Erode.
This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated December 14, 2016 made in A.S.No.86 of 2014 on the file of the ‘I Additional District Court, Erode’ ['First Appellate Court' for brevity], whereby the Judgment and Decree dated September 23, 2014 made in O.S.No.375 of 2010 on the file of ‘Principal Sub Court, Erode’ ['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.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE
3. The plaintiff is the son of 5th defendant and 6th defendant is his sister. The defendants 2, 5 and 7 are sons of the 1st defendant. The defendants 3 and 4 are the daughter and minor son of the 2nd defendant respectively. The defendants 8 and 9 are the sons of the 7th defendant. The genealogy chart appended hereu
D.S.Lakshmaiah and Another Vs. L.Balasubramanyam and Another
The plaintiff failed to prove that the Suit 'B' Schedule properties were ancestral, and the Suit was barred by limitation under Article 60 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Daughters became coparceners under Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989, allowing them equal rights in joint family properties.
The burden of proof lies on the person claiming property as self-acquired to establish that it was acquired without the aid of joint family funds.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that properties acquired from individual earnings of family members cannot be treated as joint family properties unless deliberate abandonment and ....
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 burden of proof lies on asserting self-acquisition when joint family property is claimed, as evidenced in the judgment affirming the trial court's findings on property character.
Court ruled that ancestral property retains its character despite prior partition and upheld the validity of a Will despite exclusion of a natural heir.
Properties inherited from a divided father are considered separate and not ancestral, affecting claims for partition under Hindu law.
The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish that the properties are ancestral, and evidence must be pleaded and proved through evidence.
The court affirmed that items 1 and 2 of suit properties are ancestral, and items 3 to 11 are self-acquired, highlighting the plaintiffs' burden to prove family property claims.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.