Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.SRIMATHY
Arikrishnan – Appellant
Versus
Radhamuni – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties' relationship and property background (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. plaintiffs assert co-ownership rights (Para 7) |
| 3. trial court's preliminary evidence findings (Para 8) |
| 4. appeal filed by the defendants (Para 9) |
| 5. limitation issues raised by defendants (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. defendants claim adverse possession (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 7. analysis of co-ownership and joint possession (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 8. entitlement based on contribution and roles (Para 18 , 19) |
| 9. court's decision on asset distribution (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 10. final judgment and directions (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
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 t
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.
Ouster among co-sharers requires hostile animus, long exclusive possession known to other co-owner; mere possession insufficient.
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.
In a partition suit, registered documents act as constructive notice, initiating the limitation period. Prolonged exclusive possession of ancestral property by a co-owner establishes ouster. Addition....
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....
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
