Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Ms Justice R.N.MANJULA
V.Raman – Appellant
Versus
Kali – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R.N.Manjula, J.
This Second Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2013 passed in A.S.No.17 of 2012 by the learned III Additional District Judge, Vellore at Tiruppattur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2011 made in O.S.No.2 of 2009 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruppattur.
2. Heard Mr.T.M.Hariharan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.PA.Sudesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and perused the materials available on record.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in the suit as plaintiffs and defendants.
4. The 2nd defendant is the appellant. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition of their ½ share in the suit properties. The trial Court had allowed the suit and passed a preliminary decree for partition of ½ share and on the first appeal preferred by the 2nd defendant, the first appellate Court dismissed the first appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved over that, now, the 2nd defendant has preferred this second appeal.
5. The short facts pleaded by the plaintiffs in their plaint are as under :
5.1. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 ar
Unmarried daughters are recognized as coparceners in ancestral properties under the amended Hindu Succession Act, leading to equal rights in joint family assets.
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 burden of proof regarding partition, the reliance on revenue records and patta, and the presumption of joint-ness in the absence of proof of partition were central legal principles established in....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of evidence in establishing the nature of the suit property and the entitlement to seek relief by way of partition, as well as the i....
The court affirmed that admissions made during trial are binding, and ancestral properties cannot be dismissed based on a registered Partition Deed that does not negate the rights of coparceners.
Daughters are recognized as coparceners under amended Hindu Succession Act, with entitlements to ancestral property shares, emphasizing distinctions between ancestral and separate properties.
The burden of proof lies on the person claiming property as self-acquired to establish that it was acquired without the aid of joint family funds.
In partition suits, the inclusion of all necessary parties and properties is essential; non-joinder renders the suit incompetent.
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
