Back
R. SAKTHIVEL
N. Marithoppai (died) – Appellant
Versus
Alamelu – 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 July 16, 2020 made in A.S.No.24 of 2012 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Sankari, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated July 30, 2012 made in O.S.No.196 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court. Sankari.
This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated July 16, 2020 made in A.S.No.24 of 2012 by the ‘Subordinate Court, Sankari' [henceforth 'First Appellate Court'], reversing the Judgment and Decree dated July 30, 2012 passed in O.S.No.196 of 2010 by the 'District Munsif Court, Sankari' [henceforth 'Trial Court'].
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 Suit Properties originally belonged to one Angammal, wife of Chinnappa Gounder. She died leaving behind her two daughters, namely Periya Mallammal and Chinna Mallammal, as her legal heirs. Aforesaid Chinna Mallammal died issueless leaving behind her sister Periya Mallammal as her sole legal heir. Periya Mallammal died on December 7, 2009 leaving behind her husb
Co-owners are presumed to be in constructive possession of property unless ouster is proven, impacting court fee valuation in partition suits.
The court upheld the entitlement of the plaintiff's share in ancestral properties and directed the determination of her legal heirs and the validity of her Will before distribution.
The court established that a partition decree does not bind minor coparceners not included in the suit, reinforcing the importance of their representation in legal proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that properties derived by the father through a partition deed are to be treated as his self-acquired properties, as per Section 8 of the Hindu Suc....
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 with the plaintiff to establish that the properties are ancestral, and evidence must be pleaded and proved through evidence.
Minors cannot claim partition of grandfather's separate property during father's lifetime under Section 8 HSA absent proof of joint family character.
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.
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
