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
Arshnoor Singh – vs – Harpal Kaur and Others
Arunagiri – Versus – Ayyar Muthuraja and Others
Jupudy Pardha Sarathy – vs – Pentapati Rama Krishna and Others
Payal Vision Limited – vs – Radhika Choudhary
Phoolchand and Another Vs. Gopal Lal reported in AIR 1967 SC 1470
Radha Bai – vs – Ram Narayan and Others
Rengasami Reddiar (died) and Others – vs – M.K.Mummachi Reddiar (died) and Others
Shyam Narayan Prasad – vs – Krishna Prasad and Others
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 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 burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish that the properties are ancestral, and evidence must be pleaded and proved through evidence.
Unmarried daughters are recognized as coparceners in ancestral properties under the amended Hindu Succession Act, leading to equal rights in joint family assets.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of evidence in establishing the nature of the suit property and the entitlement to seek relief by way of partition, as well as the i....
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.
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....
A son born from a void marriage has rights to inheritance under amendments to the Hindu Succession Act, affirming equal status to legitimate and illegitimate children in claims for partition post the....
The amendment of co-parcenery rights retroactive effects and joint possession presumption prevent claims of ouster without substantial evidence.
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.