Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.RAJASEKAR
Dhandapani – Appellant
Versus
Rajaram – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. rights to partition ancestral properties (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. trial court's ruling on partition claim (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. substantial questions of law framed (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. plaintiff's right to demand partition (Para 12 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. ouster vs. adverse possession principles (Para 18 , 19) |
| 6. final judgment on partition and shares (Para 30 , 32) |
JUDGMENT :
K. RAJASEKAR, J.
1. The plaintiff has filed this Second Appeal challenging the concurrent finding wherein, both the Courts have held that the plaintiff is not entitled for partition of the suit properties.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred herein as per their ranking in the Trial Court.
3. The plaintiff and the first defendant are brothers. The second defendant is their sister. A Schedule properties are the ancestral properties in the hands of plaintiff's father namely, Velayudam. From the income earned from A Schedule property, B Schedule properties were purchased and both properties were enjoyed by the plaintiff, defendants and their father Velayudam. From the year 1979 onwards, the plaintiff has started residing in various places since he was employed, however, he used to pay ubiquities to
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.
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....
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.
Ouster among co-sharers requires hostile animus, long exclusive possession known to other co-owner; mere possession insufficient.
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.
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....
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
