Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.VADAMALAI
Nischal Ramkumar represented by his Power of Attorney Agent, K.Kamalanathan – Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Babu – Respondent
What is the legal standing of a grandson to sue his grandfather and father for a share in properties during their lifetime?
Key Points: - The appeal challenges the trial court's order dated 28.06.2024 rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC in O.S.No.52 of 2022 (!) (!) - Plaintiff sought declaration of 1/8 share in suit properties claimed as ancestral and permanent injunction, alleging prior partition in 1972 and fraudulent documents by defendants (!) - Defendants argued suit unmaintainable as plaintiff (grandson of 1st defendant, son of 2nd defendant) cannot sue living grandfather/father under Hindu Succession Act S.8, properties are self-acquired post-partition (!) (!) - Trial court rejected plaint for no cause of action and unmaintainability; High Court affirmed as plaintiff lacks standing against living family members (!) (!) - Suit reliefs, though framed as declaration, are essentially for partition; clever drafting cannot mask true nature (!) (!) - Properties partitioned in 1972 became absolute self-acquired properties of 1st defendant under Hindu Succession Act S.8, confirmed by compromise decree in 2022 (!) (!) - Plaint rejected solely on its averments under Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC for failing to disclose cause of action (!) (!) - Even post-death of 1st defendant, suit remains unmaintainable against living father (2nd defendant) (!) (!) - Appeal dismissed, trial court judgment confirmed, no costs (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
This Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 28.06.2024 passed in I.A.No.26 of 2024 in O.S.No.52 of 2022 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Tenkasi.
2. The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.52 of 2022 on the file of the Additional District Court, Tenkasi. The respondents are the defendants 4 and 5 in that suit.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in the trial Court.
4. The brief facts are as below:
(i) The plaintiff has filed the main suit to declare that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/8 share in the suit properties and consequential permanent injunction against the defendants 1 to 5. The suit properties are consisting of as many as 16 items in I Schedule and 19 items in II Schedule. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit I Schedule and some other properties originally belonged to one Venkatasamy, st who had two sons Srinivasan, the 1 defendant herein, and Lingava Naciker. The two sons partitioned the properties on 29.08.1972. The 1 defendant is a doctor, whose education expenditure were born out from the income of ancestral st properties. The 1st defendant is bedridden for the past 10 ye
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
