Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mrs. Justice R. Hemalatha, J
Dhamodharan – Appellant
Versus
Maruthachalam – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. defendants claimed oral partition (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. trial court's findings (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. suit barred by limitation (Para 16 , 17) |
| 4. second appeal allowed (Para 18) |
JUDGMENT :
The appellants are the defendants in O.S. No.123/2016 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore. The respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs filed the said suit for partition of the suit property into 16 equal shares and to allot three such shares to them.
3.The case of the plaintiffs in a nutshell is as follows :
4. The suit was resisted by the defendants 1 and 2 on the following grounds:
ii. There was an oral partition between Subbanna Gounder and his father Ramasamy during the year 1969 in which the entire suit property was allotted to the share of Ramasamy (since deceased). Ramasamy agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards annual maintenance to his father late Subbanna Gounder.
iv. Ramasamy, the defendants' father was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property. He also dealt with the suit property by mortgaging the same on 15.06.1971 (Ex.B2) in favour of one Krishna Gounder.
vi. The defendants are in exclusive possession and enjoym
A partition suit filed after 14 years of a co-owner's death is barred by limitation if the other co-owner has established exclusive possession and adverse possession.
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 ....
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 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 ....
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 in establishing the existence and extent of an oral partition lies with the party claiming such 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 court affirmed that daughters are entitled to equal shares in ancestral properties post-amendment, invalidating wrongful transactions made without their consent.
Oral partition must be substantiated with evidence; mere allegations without proof do not suffice to alter joint family property status.
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
