Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Sathish Kumar, J
Murugan – Appellant
Versus
Sathya – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. brief background of the appeal (Para 2 , 5) |
| 2. the learned counsel for the appellants submitted (Para 3) |
| 3. whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted (Para 4) |
| 4. it is the admitted case of the parties (Para 6) |
| 5. though it is contended by the plaintiffs (Para 7 , 8) |
| 6. therefore, this court is of the view (Para 9 , 10) |
| 7. in fine, this appeal suit (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT :
(N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
Challenging the decree and judgment passed by the Trial Court granting preliminary decree for dividing the suit properties into three equal shares and allot plaintiffs 2 and 3 each with 1/3rd share; also setting aside the sale deed dated 19.09.2016 executed in favour of the second defendant in respect of the second and third plaintiffs' undivided 2/3rd shares, the present appeal has been filed.
2. Brief background of the appeal is as follows:
2.a. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the minor children of the first plaintiff and the first defendant. They are represented by the first plaintiff, who is the wife of the first defendant. According to them, the suit properties are ancestral properties of first defendant's father and the same was allotted to the first defendant in a partition
The burden of proof for legal necessity in property sales involving minors lies with the seller, and failure to provide evidence invalidates such sales.
The burden of proving legal necessity for the alienation of ancestral property lies on the alienee, and the transaction must be for the family's benefit, binding all undivided family members.
The legal principle established is that in cases involving the sale of joint family property, the burden of proving legal necessity lies with the purchaser only if the plaintiffs have properly pleade....
Sales of ancestral property require evidence of legal necessity, and the burden lies on the purchaser; lack of evidence invalidates claims of necessity.
Legal necessity must be proven to invalidate a sale deed executed for minors' benefit, with the burden of proof on defendants to contest authenticity.
The validity of a sale deed in the context of family necessity and the application of limitation periods under the Limitation Act, 1963.
The court established that a sale of ancestral property requires clear evidence of family necessity to be binding on co-owners, and the limitation period for challenging such sales is twelve years un....
In joint family property disputes, a guardian may transact on behalf of minors without court sanction, provided sales serve family interests.
The validity of a sale deed executed by a Hindu Undivided Family member is upheld when legal necessity is demonstrated, despite claims of ancestral rights by co-parceners.
The Kartha of a joint family must prove legal necessity for alienation of family property; failure to demonstrate necessity invalidates alienation for coparceners' shares.
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
