Back
R. SUBRAMANIAN, R. SAKTHIVEL
Vasuki – Appellant
Versus
K. Janakiraman – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
Prayer: First Appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 27.02.2019 made in O.S. No. 47 of 2016 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Vellore @ Ranipet, Vellore District.
1. Feeling aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated February 27, 2019, passed in O.S. No. 47 of 2016 on the file of ‘II Additional District Judge, Vellore @ Ranipet’ (henceforth ‘Trial Court’) the plaintiffs therein have filed this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to set aside the judgment and decree, allow the Appeal and decree the Suit as prayed for in the plaint.
2. Since the fourth appellant-K. Kirubavathi passed away during the pendency of the appeal, her legal representatives were brought on record as Appellant Nos. 5 to 7, vide order of this Court dated February 22, 2022 made in CMP No. 1765 of 2022 in A.S. No. 564 of 2019.
3. For the sake of convenience, henceforth, the parties to this appeal suit will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit i.e. the ‘appellants’ herein and the ‘respondents’ herein will be referred to as ‘pla
The court upheld the validity of the WILL for self-acquired properties while recognizing the plaintiffs' entitlement to a share in the ancestral property, affirming the distinction between self-acqui....
Properties inherited from a divided father are considered separate and not ancestral, affecting claims for partition under Hindu law.
The claimant must prove the existence of joint family properties; mere familial ties do not suffice for partition 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 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.
Daughters became coparceners under Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989, allowing them equal rights in joint family properties.
Daughters are coparceners by birth under the amended Hindu Succession Act, entitled to equal shares in ancestral properties.
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
