Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.Balaji
Balakrishnan – Appellant
Versus
Thangamuthu – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
P.B.Balaji, J.
The plaintiff in a suit for partition is the appellant in both the Appeals.
2. The parties are described as per their litigative status before the trial Court.
3. Both the Second Appeals arise out of judgment and decree in O.S.No.180 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Perundurai. The said suit was decreed in favour of the appellant herein. However, two appeals, viz., one Appeal in A.S. No.36 of 2005, by defendants 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 and another in A.S. No. 37 of 2015, by defendants 8 to 10, came to be filed challenging the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Both the Appeals were allowed by the First Appellate Court as against which the above Second Appeals have been preferred.
4. On 06.06.2017, the above Second Appeals were admitted on the following five substantial questions of law:-
“ (1) Whether the First Appellate Court is right in holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to get right by birth when there exists a coparcenary and the joint family properties as on the date of his birth?
(2) Whether the First Appellate Court is right in holding that the plaintiff did not question the property sold under Ex.B6 to Ex.B8 dated 27.08.1981 particularly when t
A grandson born after his grandfather's death is entitled to claim a share in joint family properties, recognizing coparcenary rights established under Hindu Succession Act amendments.
The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish that properties acquired were from joint family income, failing which the claim for partition of those properties cannot succeed.
The claimant must prove the existence of joint family properties; mere familial ties do not suffice for partition claims.
The court affirmed that items 1 and 2 of suit properties are ancestral, and items 3 to 11 are self-acquired, highlighting the plaintiffs' burden to prove family property claims.
The presumption of joint family status in Hindu law requires clear evidence to establish prior partition; the Appellate Court allowed partition of one property acquired post-partition while dismissin....
Daughters became coparceners under Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989, allowing them equal rights in joint family properties.
Point of law: A daughter of a coparcener by birth becomes a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son. She has the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she....
Court ruled that ancestral property retains its character despite prior partition and upheld the validity of a Will despite exclusion of a natural heir.
The court reaffirmed that daughters have equal rights as sons in ancestral properties, emphasizing the applicability of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act.
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
