Back
R. SAKTHIVEL
Gomathi @ Govindammal – Appellant
Versus
Ramayal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree made in A.S. No. 22 of 2016 on the file of the 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District, dated 25.07.2017 confirming the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. No. 51 of 2012 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District, dated 09.06.2016.
1. This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated July 25, 2017 passed in A.S. No. 22 of 2016 by the ‘learned 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District’ [henceforth ‘First Appellate Court’ for brevity and convenience] confirming the Judgment and Decree dated June 9, 2016 passed in O.S. No. 51 of 2012 by the ‘learned Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District’ [henceforth ‘Trial Court’ for brevity and convenience].
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 plaintiff - Ramayal is the wife of one Nanjappa Gounder. They have two sons from their marriage, namely N. Chandrasekaran and N. Mo
The court affirmed that co-owners retain rights unless clear ouster is proven, and limitation laws do not apply to partition claims under the Hindu Succession Act.
A claim for partition can prevail despite long possession by others if there is insufficient proof of ouster or adverse possession against a co-parcener. Limitation Act principles apply to claims acc....
A co-parcener's possession is presumed to be joint; mere exclusive possession by another does not constitute adverse possession without evidence of hostile intent, supporting the right to partition.
The amendment of co-parcenery rights retroactive effects and joint possession presumption prevent claims of ouster without substantial evidence.
Possession of one co-parcener is deemed possession of all; mere long possession does not establish adverse possession without evidence of ouster.
The possession of property by a co-owner does not amount to adverse possession against other co-owners unless clear ouster is proven.
The court affirmed that daughters are entitled to equal shares in ancestral properties post-amendment, invalidating wrongful transactions made without their consent.
Co-ownership implies that possession by one co-owner is possession for all, and oral relinquishment must be proven to be valid.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the validation of sale deeds, entitlement to seek partition and separate possession, and the rejection of adverse possession 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
