Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar, J
Dhandapani – Appellant
Versus
Rajaram – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's claim of partition (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. defendants' claim of ouster (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 3. court's ruling on ouster (Para 30 , 31) |
| 4. second appeal allowed (Para 32) |
JUDGMENT :
The plaintiff has filed this Second Appeal challenging the concurrent finding wherein, both the Courts have held that the plaintiff is not entitled for partition of the suit properties.
3. The plaintiff and the first defendant are brothers. The second defendant is their sister. A Schedule properties are the ancestral properties in the hands of plaintiff's father namely, Velayudam. From the income earned from A Schedule property, B Schedule properties were purchased and both properties were enjoyed by the plaintiff, defendants and their father Velayudam. From the year 1979 onwards, the plaintiff has started residing in various places since he was employed, however, he used to pay ubiquities to his father. Velayudam Padayachi was died on 12.09.1984. Prior to his death, he was having a severe illness for the period of one month and he was not in a fit state of mind. Taking advantage of the plaintiff's absence, the d
Possession of one co-parcener is deemed possession of all; mere long possession does not establish adverse possession without evidence of ouster.
A claim for partition can prevail despite long possession by others if there is insufficient proof of ouster or adverse possession against a co-parcener. Limitation Act principles apply to claims acc....
A co-parcener's possession is presumed to be joint; mere exclusive possession by another does not constitute adverse possession without evidence of hostile intent, supporting the right to partition.
The court affirmed that co-owners retain rights unless clear ouster is proven, and limitation laws do not apply to partition claims under the Hindu Succession Act.
The amendment of co-parcenery rights retroactive effects and joint possession presumption prevent claims of ouster without substantial evidence.
The court affirmed that daughters are entitled to equal shares in ancestral properties post-amendment, invalidating wrongful transactions made without their consent.
Properties claimed as self-acquired were determined to be ancestral; the appeal for partition was dismissed due to lack of joint possession evidence and non-joinder of necessary parties, also barred ....
(1) Principle that there cannot be a partial partition is not an absolute one – It admits of exceptions. Properties not in possession of co-sharers/coparceners being omitted cannot result in a suit f....
The possession of property by a co-owner does not amount to adverse possession against other co-owners unless clear ouster is proven.
The court affirmed that joint possession must be established for heirs to claim rights over ancestral property, and failure to act on exclusion for over 12 years barred the suit under Article 110 of ....
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
