Back
R. SAKTHIVEL
A. Suganthi – Appellant
Versus
A. Pushpa – 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 September 20, 2018 passed in A.S.No.19 of 2017 by the Additional District Court, Erode, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated March 20, 2017 passed in O.S.No.86 of 2011 by the II Additional Subordinate Court, Erode.
This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated September 20, 2018 passed in A.S.No.19 of 2017 by the 'II Additional District Court (Mahalir Neethimandram), Erode' [henceforth 'First Appellate Court'], confirming the Judgment and Decree dated March 20, 2017 passed in O.S.No.86 of 2011 by the 'II Additional Subordinate Court, Erode' [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. One Subbanna Gounder had four children, namely Palaniammal (plaintiff), Pongiammal, Valliammal and Pavayammal. The said Subbanna Gounder died intestate in 1984. His wife passed away intestate in the year 1974. After the demise of Subbanna Gounder, the plaintiff and her sisters are each entitled to common 1/4 share in
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.
Daughters have equal rights to ancestral property under the Hindu Succession Act, and the sale of property by male heirs does not negate the rights of female heirs.
Co-owners are presumed to be in constructive possession of property unless ouster is proven, impacting court fee valuation in partition suits.
A legal heir is entitled to an equal share in joint family properties, and claims of exclusive ownership must be substantiated by 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.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the plaintiff to claim a share in the suit properties based on the evidence and admissions made by the parties.
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.
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
