Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA, J
Ponnusamy – Appellant
Versus
Ammakannu Ammal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This Second Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2011 in A.S.No.9 of 2006 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gingee, confirming the decree and judgment dated 20.01.2005 in O.S.No.59 of 1995 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Gingee.
2. Heard Mr.R.Rajaraman, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.T.Dhanasekaran, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
3. The first defendant is the appellant against whom the plaintiff has filed a suit for partition and separate possession of 1/7th share in the suit property. The Trial Court has decreed the suit and passed a preliminary decree in respect of 1/7th share of the plaintiff as prayed. The first defendant has preferred a First Appeal challenging the preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court and the same was dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Aggrieved over that, the first defendant has preferred this Second Appeal.
4. The short facts pleaded in the plaint are as follows:
The suit 'A' schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of one Rayar Gounder. The suit 'B' schedule properties belonged to one Kutti
A legal heir is entitled to an equal share in joint family properties, and claims of exclusive ownership must be substantiated by evidence.
Unmarried daughters are recognized as coparceners in ancestral properties under the amended Hindu Succession Act, leading to equal rights in joint family assets.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between ancestral property and self-acquired property in a partition suit, and the requirement for evidence to support claims of jo....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the burden of proof lies on the party claiming a prior partition, and in the absence of documentary evidence, unchallenged evidence of the opp....
The court affirmed that mere allegations of illegitimacy do not negate the plaintiffs' rights to inheritance, and the defendants failed to prove their claims of oral partition and sale.
The burden of proof in establishing the existence and extent of an oral partition lies with the party claiming such partition.
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....
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
