Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mrs Justice J. NISHA BANU, R.KALAIMATHI
G.Karthikeyan – Appellant
Versus
G.thirumalaivasan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
J.NISHA BANU, J.
This Appeal suit is filed by the appellants/defendants as against the decreetal of the suit in O.S.No.2080 of 2019 dated 09.12.2022.
2. The respondent herein is the plaintiff and filed a suit in O.S.No.2080 of 2019 on the file of XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, praying for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to vacate and handover or deliver the vacant possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff without any condition and for the consequential relief of permanent injunction that the defendant should not in any manner interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and cost for the suit.
3. (a) The defendants are the appellants herein. The Plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for the relief of Mandatory injunction as stated above. The Plaintiff/respondent is the younger brother of the 1st defendant/1st appellant and the 2nd defendant/2nd appellant is the wife of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are the sons of Ganesamurthy and G.Nageswari.
(b) The plaintiff completed M.B.B.S course in the year January 2000 and worked at Kerala and Chennai. Thereafter, he was working at London. He
Ownership of property established through financial contribution and valid settlement deeds supersedes claims of joint family ownership without corroborative evidence.
The burden of proving a benami transaction rests on the party asserting the plea, and the defendants failed to discharge this burden.
The court affirmed that property treated as joint family property entitles the plaintiff to a 1/3rd share, ruling against the validity of a unilateral settlement deed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the property was purchased with the income of the father, and the settlement deeds were obtained through fraud and coercion, leading to the en....
The court affirmed that mere occupation by a licensee does not confer ownership rights and emphasized the necessity for evidence in disputes over property ownership.
In partition suits concerning benami transactions, the burden of proving such claims lies with the defendants; failure to do so results in equal distribution of shares among legal heirs.
The court emphasized the importance of clear, unambiguous, and unconditional admissions for the exercise of discretion under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC and highlighted the principle that possession ....
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
