Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. Jayachandran
Sellammal, W/o.Late.T.K.Subramaniam – Appellant
Versus
Jayamani, W/o. Palanisamy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G. Jayachandran, J.
The appellants herein are the defendants 3 to 6 in the suit for partition. The subject matter of the suit is a part of a larger extent of land measuring a total extend of 6.17 acres in S.No:17, R.S No: 96.
2. Out of 6.17 acres of land, 1/3rd was purchased by Kuttiayappa Gounder S/o Kaithamalai Gounder, who purchased it on 06.04.1958 and the balance 2/3rd undivided share ie 4.12 extent of land was purchased by Chinnathambi Gounder under two sale deeds dated 06.06.1966. Chinnathambi is father of the plaintiffs.Kuttiayappa Gounder is the predecessor-in-title of Defendants 1 to 9.
3.The case of the plaintiffs is that, though the property was purchased by these two persons at different point of time, they were jointly enjoying the property commonly without any partition. While so, on 03.02.2014, the defendants who belong to the branch of Kuttiyappa gounder, divided their share in the suit property among themselves without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs who are from the branch of Chinnathambi Gounder. Knowing the unilateral partition among the descendants of Kuttiayappa Gounder, detrimental to the interest of the plaintiffs, who were enjoying the p
Claiming partition requires proof of joint possession and enjoyment; absence of such evidence leads to dismissal of partition suits.
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....
A plaintiff can only establish entitlement to partition if they demonstrate joint ownership and the failure to do so, particularly through admissions and evidence of prior partition, warrants dismiss....
The court ruled that an oral partition was established and the plaintiff cannot claim partial partition without including all relevant properties, adhering to heirs' rights under Hindu law.
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 absence of conclusive evidence for a prior partition entitles the plaintiff to a share in joint family properties, reaffirming the principle that the burden of proof lies with the defendants.
Ancestral property is defined by long-term family possession, and joint patta establishes ownership, regardless of individual assignments.
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
