Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.SUBRAMANIAN, R.SAKTHIVEL
Sneha – Appellant
Versus
K.Sakthivel – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
1. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.260 of 2008 on the file of 'I-Additional District Judge, Erode' (henceforth 'Trial Court').
2. For the sake of convenience, henceforth, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Suit i.e., the appellant herein and the respondents herein will be referred to as plaintiff and defendants respectively.
3. Feeling aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated June26, 2014, passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.260 of 2008, the plaintiff has preferred this Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the ‘Code of Civil Procedure, 1908’ (henceforth ‘CPC’), praying to set aside the judgment and decree.
4. Plaintiff’s case
4.1. The case of the plaintiff is that, the marriage between the couple, K.Sakthivel / 1st Defendant (D1) and Sridevi, was solemnized on September 10, 2000. Out of their wedlock, plaintiff - Sneha was born on July 7, 2001. Around 2007, there arose some matrimonial dispute between the couple and they filed petition for divorce. In these circumstances, the minor plaintiff – Sneha (now major) represented by her mother – Sridevi filed O.S.No.260 of 2008 for partition and other reli
Properties inherited from a divided father are considered separate and not ancestral, affecting claims for partition under Hindu law.
The court upheld the validity of the WILL for self-acquired properties while recognizing the plaintiffs' entitlement to a share in the ancestral property, affirming the distinction between self-acqui....
The burden of proof lies on asserting self-acquisition when joint family property is claimed, as evidenced in the judgment affirming the trial court's findings on property character.
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 ....
Daughters are coparceners by birth under the amended Hindu Succession Act, entitled to equal shares in ancestral properties.
The plaintiff failed to prove that the Suit 'B' Schedule properties were ancestral, and the Suit was barred by limitation under Article 60 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish that the properties are ancestral, and evidence must be pleaded and proved through evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of ancestral properties available for partition and the validity of gift settlement deeds.
The claimant must prove the existence of joint family properties; mere familial ties do not suffice for partition claims.
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
