Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J
Rajambal (died), W.o Late Manicka Udayar – Appellant
Versus
Dhanakkodi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Aggrieved over the judgment and decree of the trial Court made in O.S.No.160 of 2016 dated 04.10.2021, granting Preliminary Decree in favour of the plaintiff for 6/25 share, the present Appeal Suit came to be filed.
2. The parties are arrayed according to their ranking in the trial Court.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff is as follows:-
One Manicka Udayar had two wives. The plaintiff was born through the first wife. After the death of the first wife, the first defendant married the said Manicka Udayar. The defendants 2 to 4 born to the first defendant. According to the plaintiff, the suit properties is a separate family property and the same has been allotted to Manicka Udayar in a partition deed dated 23.09.1960 (Ex.A1). The said property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff's father died intestate on 11.10.1960(Ex.B2). Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/5th share and the defendants are making an attempt to sell the property, while evading the allotment of the plaintiff's share. Hence, the suit has been filed.
4. The contention of the defendants 3 and 4 in the written statement is that the property belongs to the jo
The court clarified that ancestral property is subject to established joint family ownership principles, and oral relinquishments of property rights require substantial evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that unless prior partition is established, there shall be a presumption that the property is joint family property, and a family arrangement in th....
The court reaffirmed that daughters have equal rights as sons in ancestral properties, emphasizing the applicability of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act.
Daughters have equal rights as coparceners in ancestral property under the Hindu Succession Act as amended in 2005, affecting share distribution in partition cases.
The court clarified that properties must be inherited or acquired from a joint family nucleus to be classified as ancestral under Hindu law, rejecting claims based solely on joint acquisition.
The court affirmed the joint family status and the trial court's ruling on partition, rejecting claims of prior oral partition due to insufficient 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
