Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN
M. Sheela W/o D. Murali – Appellant
Versus
R. Visalatchi W/o Raman – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This Appeal Suit filed against the judgment and decree passed in the partition suit O.S.No. 365 of 2019.
2. The case of the plaintiff/Vatsala:
The plaintiff is the elder daughter of late Panchatcharam. The first defendant Muniammal is the younger daughter of Panchatcharam. P.Munusamy is the only son of Panchatcharam. The said Munusamy died and the defendants 2 to 4 are his daughter, son and wife respectively.
3. Panchatcharam died in the year 1970 leaving behind his wife, son and two daughters. The daughters got married after the demise of Panchatcharam. Even after marriage, the plaintiff used to visit the village and inspect the properties as co-owner. Ponnammal, the wife of Panchatcharam died in the year 2014. After the death of Panchatcharam, his only son Munusamy as Karta of the family was maintaining the ancestral properties on behalf of other members of the family. The properties were enjoyed by all the children of Panchatcharam as joint family property. The plaintiff requested her brother Munusamy for partition during his life time. He gave evasive reply and did not consider her request. After the death of Munusamy, she came to know about the collusive partition de
Rights for partition in ancestral property for daughters recognized post the 2005 amendment, with claims barred by limitation in the absence of joint possession.
A partition suit cannot proceed if necessary parties are not joined, and mere passage of time does not negate the limitation period for filing such claims.
Daughters have the right to claim a share in ancestral property as coparceners under Sec. 6(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, but their entitlement is limited by the proviso to Sec. 6(1) based on th....
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 Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 grants daughters co-parcener status from birth, making any prior relinquishment of rights invalid for partition claims.
The court affirmed that the plaintiff, as a coparcener by birth, is entitled to a ½ share in ancestral properties under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and ruled against the validity of transactions ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that unless prior partition is established, there shall be a presumption that the property is joint family property, and a family arrangement in th....
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
