Back
R. SAKTHIVEL
Gurrappa Naidu – Appellant
Versus
Munusamy Naidu – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated June 26, 2020 passed in A.S.No.4 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated February 13, 2017 passed in O.S.No.23 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri.
This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated June 26, 2020 passed in A.S.No.4 of 2018 by the 'learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri' [henceforth 'First Appellate Court' for the sake of brevity and convenience] confirming the Judgment and Decree dated February 13, 2017 passed in O.S.No.23 of 2013 by the 'learned District Munsif, Krishnagiri' [henceforth 'Trial Court' for the sake of brevity and convenience].
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF:
3. One Appaiyan @ Munusamy and Pappammal are husband and wife. They have four sons, namely Munusamy (Plaintiff), Gurrappa Naidu (1st Defendant), Krishnan and Govindasamy. Appaiyan @ Munusamy passed away 60 years ago and his wife Pappam
Boundaries prevail over extent in property disputes, and the burden of proof lies with the claimant to establish entitlement beyond what is specified in the Partition Deed.
The court affirmed the validity of a Partition Deed, ruling that the plaintiffs were entitled to their claims and that the defendants' objections regarding property boundaries were unfounded.
Land rights must adhere to the terms specified in a Partition Deed, reflecting the historical context and family agreements regarding property ownership and boundaries.
Ownership rights cannot exceed what is originally conveyed in property transactions, substantiating claims requires clear and convincing evidence.
The right and title to property should be determined based on title deeds and possession, and the theory of 'error' deduced from Rule 56 of the Kerala Survey and Boundary Rules, 1964 has no applicati....
In property disputes, the Plaintiff must prove title and possession with clear evidence, particularly regarding boundaries, which takes precedence over extent claims.
The court upheld that an unregistered partition deed can provide context in disputes regarding possession, especially when substantiated by oral evidence of long-term use under Section 9 of the U.P. ....
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
