Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr.Justice N.Sathish Kumar, J
Govindammal, D/o Late Palanisamy Gounder – Appellant
Versus
Nachimuthugounder (Died) – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the suit filed for partition, the present appeal came to be filed by the unsuccessful second plaintiff.
2. The parties are arrayed as one for ranking by the trial Court.
3. The brief facts of the plaintiffs’ case is as follows:-
According to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are the daughters of one Palanisamy Gounder. The third defendant, one Arukathal, is the mother of the plaintiffs. The fourth and fifth defendants are the brothers of the plaintiffs. The first defendant is the brother of the plaintiff’s father Palanisamy Gounder. The second defendant is the purchaser of the suit property. The defendants 6 to 8 are the legal heirs of the first defendant. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property is an ancestral property belonging to their father Palanisamy Gounder and their uncle Nachimuthu gounder. The suit property remains as joint family property. The first defendant sold the undivided share to the second defendant through a sale deed dated 06.08.2003. According to the plaintiffs, it is not binding on the plaintiffs, as the property has not been partitioned. The plaintiffs, being the legal heirs of their father Palanisamy Gounder, soug
Oral relinquishment of property rights is invalid without a registered instrument, and strict proof of Wills is required for validity.
The court affirmed that any property acquired by a female Hindu under the Hindu Succession Act is absolute property, and the burden of proving an oral partition lies with the asserting party.
The court established that the burden of proof for oral partition lies with the party asserting it, and mere testimony from interested parties is insufficient without corroborating evidence.
The plaintiff bears the burden of proof in asserting property as joint family assets, and failure to demonstrate the existence of a joint family or common funding negates claims to partition.
Admitted registered Will's execution is axiomatic; no Section 68 proof needed if not fact in issue.
In partition disputes, the burden to prove claims, such as that of a will or oral partition, rests on the claimants. Failure to provide evidence results in favor of standard inheritance rights for Cl....
If terms of contract reduced into writing and duly registered is sought to be excluded by oral evidence, burden is on plaintiffs to adduce evidence sufficient to exclude written evidence, as per Sect....
In matters of inheritance in joint family properties, ancestral status prevails unless a valid Will is presented; thus, equitable shares must be allocated accordingly.
A daughter's entitlement to inherit a share as a co-parcener in ancestral property is upheld, emphasizing the need to distinguish between ancestral and self-acquired properties.
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
