Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mrs.Justice T.V.Thamilselvi, J
Eswari – Appellant
Versus
Krishnappa Chetty (died) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
T.V. Thamilselvi, J.
The appellant, who is the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No. 56 of 2011 on the file of Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri against the defendants claiming partition of her 1/4th share in the suit property. On hearing both sides, the trial judge dismissed the suit. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff preferred this Second Appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are denoted as per the ranking in the suit.
3. Before the trial court, the plaintiff filed a suit claiming partition of her 1/4th share in the suit property against the defendants stating that the 1st defendant is her father, who had two sons viz., defendants 2 and 3 and one daughter, the plaintiff herein. All were enjoyed the properties as a joint family properties and not amicably agreed for partition. Hence, she came forward with this suit claiming 1/4th share in the suit property.
4. The 3rd defendant alone contested the suit and other two defendants remained exparte. The 3rd defendant admits the relationship, but denied the plaintiff's claim over the suit property. He stated that already he along with his father and another brother, all the three partitioned the suit property al
A plaintiff is entitled to a share in joint family property despite a prior partition deed if there is evidence of consent from the father to grant such share.
Registered partition deeds take precedence over claims of oral partition, limiting the rights of heirs under the amended Hindu Succession Act to those alive or affected at the time of partition.
Properties claimed as self-acquired were determined to be ancestral; the appeal for partition was dismissed due to lack of joint possession evidence and non-joinder of necessary parties, also barred ....
Point of law: There is no dispute that even under Ex.A-4, the plaintiff who was a minor at the relevant time, was made eo nomine party. In such a circumstance, as rightly contended, he has to pray fo....
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.
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.
A party aware of a will at the time of a partition deed cannot avoid the document and maintain a suit for partition without challenging the partition deed.
The court clarified the interpretation of Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act and held that it did not apply in this case, as it had been repealed and the plaintiffs had a right to seek partition ....
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
