Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
D. Selvaraj – Appellant
Versus
Jayashankar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2013 passed in O.S. No. 162 of 2008 by the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were ranked in the original suit.
3. The appellants are the defendants in suit O.S. No. 162 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu. The suit was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs seeking partition of their one-third share in the entire suit property.
4. The defendants contested the suit, and after hearing both sides, the learned trial judge partly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. The trial court granted the plaintiffs one-third share in the plaint A-Schedule properties and in items 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10 of the B-Schedule properties. However, the suit was dismissed with respect to items 3, 6, and 8 of the B- Schedule properties. Aggrieved by this decision, the defendants have preferred the present first appeal.
5. The brief facts of the case: The plaintiffs' mother, Kanniammal, and the defendants are the daughter and sons of one Duraisamy Naicker and Vengammal. Kanniammal passed away in
The mere description of property as ancestral does not establish its nature; evidence of purchase and settlement deeds is essential for determining ownership.
Daughters became coparceners under Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989, allowing them equal rights in joint family properties.
Ancestral property entitlement under Hindu Succession Act limits the plaintiff's share to 1/8, not 3/8, affirming the rights of coparceners post-amendment.
The central legal point established is the recognition of ancestral properties and the source of income for property purchase in determining property rights.
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 entitlement to share in joint family properties under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is contingent upon the proof of surplus income from the ancestral nucleus.
The properties in question are ancestral under Hindu law, entitling family members to coparcenary rights, with the need for documentary evidence to challenge ancestral claims.
A claimant must prove the ancestral nature of properties to claim entitlement under the amended Hindu Succession Act; mere assertions without evidence are insufficient.
The claimant must prove the existence of joint family properties; mere familial ties do not suffice for partition 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
