Back
R. SAKTHIVEL
Alamelu – Appellant
Versus
Palanisamy Gounder (Died) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(R. Sakthivel, J.)
(PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated October 12, 2020 made in A.S.No.45 of 2018 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Tiruppur confirming the Judgment and Decree dated February 27, 2017 made in O.S.No.130 of 2016 on the file of the learned Sub Court, Avinashi.)
This Second Appeal is directed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs. Challenge is to the Judgment and Decree dated October 12, 2020 passed in A.S.No.45 of 2018 by the 'I Additional District Court, Tiruppur' [henceforth 'First Appellate Court'], whereby the Judgment and Decree dated February 27, 2017 passed in O.S.No.130 of 2016 by the 'Sub Court, Avinashi' [henceforth 'Trial Court'] was confirmed.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.
3. It is fruitful to refer to the following genealogy chart for better understanding:
TRAJECTORY OF THE PLAINT TO THE TRIAL COURT
4. The plaint in the present Suit was initially filed before the Subordinate Court, Erode on September 22, 1999 and numbered as O.S.No.608 of 1999 and the
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 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 claim of property as ancestral requires proof of lineage and sufficient income, with living together not granting rights. The second appeal is restricted to substantial questions of law.
The judicial presumption of joint ownership requires proof of a family nucleus, and mere existence of a joint family does not automatically classify all properties as joint.
The absence of evidence proving the joint family status of properties allows a presumption that they are individual assets; thus, plaintiffs' claim for partition is dismissed.
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.
Ancestral properties must be proven to remain joint family properties post-partition; otherwise, they are deemed separate and not subject to partition claims.
In a partition suit, the burden of proving that property standing in an individual's name is joint family property lies upon the party asserting it, requiring proof of a sufficient ancestral nucleus.....
The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish that the properties are ancestral, and evidence must be pleaded and proved through evidence.
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
