Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.SRIMATHY
Arikrishnan – Appellant
Versus
Radhamuni – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S. SRIMATHY, J.
1. This Appeal Suit is filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 09.09.2022, passed in O.S.No.67 of 2015 on the file of Principal District Court, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur.
2. The appellants herein are the defendants 1 & 2 in the suit and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the suit. The 5th respondent is the 3rd defendant in this suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per the ranking in the suit. And where ever defendants are mentioned it only indicates the 1st and 2nd defendants alone.
3. The plaintiffs had filed the suit in O.S.No.67 of 2015 for partition to divide the suit schedule properties into 5 equal shares and allot 1/5th share each to the plaintiffs and 1st defendant. And for declaration to declare that the Settlement Deed dated 10.10.2007 registered as Document No.5166/2007 and Mortgage Deed dated 24.10.2011 registered as Document No.8140/2011 are invalid and not binding in respect of the shares of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties and permanent injunction against the defendants to deal with their shares in the properties.
4. The plaintiffs are the sisters of the 1st defendant. The
The court affirmed that daughters are entitled to equal shares in ancestral properties post-amendment, invalidating wrongful transactions made without their consent.
The amendment of co-parcenery rights retroactive effects and joint possession presumption prevent claims of ouster without substantial evidence.
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.
Possession of one co-parcener is deemed possession of all; mere long possession does not establish adverse possession without evidence of ouster.
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.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the Plaintiffs to a 1/4th share in the joint family ancestral properties and the invalidity of the registered Will Deed.
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
