Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
D.Mangayarkarasi (died) – Appellant
Versus
M.Rajeswari Ammal (deceased) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
The plaintiff in O.S.No.11907 of 2019, on the file of the III Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, is the appellant herein.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their litigative status before the Trial Court.
3(a). The plaintiff had originally filed a suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/5 share of the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and for other ancillary relief, on the original side of this Court in C.S.No.695 of 2003.
3(b). The defendants filed their written statement, wherein a defence was set opposing the claim of the plaintiff by inter alia contending that the plaintiff got married to Deivasigamani on 02.02.1966. She executed a release deed in favour of the defendants 1 to 4 and the same was registered with the Sub Registrar Office, Saidapet, in the year 1966.
3(c). The third defendant had filed a partition suit against the defendants 1 and 2, which was culminated in a compromise decree before this Court on 20.01.2001. The plaintiff thereafter took out an application to amend the plaint in C.S.No.695 of 2003, wherein she wanted to have the registered release deed said to have been executed by
The validity of a release deed executed 37 years prior cannot be challenged based on fraud allegations that lack credible evidence, and claims for partition are barred by limitation.
The court established that unregistered documents affecting rights in immovable property are inadmissible in evidence, and that joint family properties are subject to partition among all rightful hei....
The court affirmed the validity of a Release Deed executed by a legal heir, emphasizing the burden of proof lies on the party disputing its execution.
The court reaffirmed that claims regarding a release deed are barred by limitation if the parties were consenting witnesses and did not promptly raise allegations of misrepresentation or fraud.
Presumption under Section 90 of Evidence Act is applicable to Wills – Registration, by itself, in all cases, is not a proof of execution.
The court emphasized the necessity of proving a Will through independent witnesses and upheld the validity of a release deed executed by the plaintiff, leading to the dismissal of her claims.
The court established the principle that under the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 1/1990, a daughter is entitled to her share in ancestral property, and any disposition or alienation without her consent is....
The plaintiff's mother became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties by virtue of the Ryotwari Patta granted in her name under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversi....
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
