Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI
Subramani – Appellant
Versus
Maragathavalli – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
P.B. Balaji, J.
The plaintiffs in a suit for partition aggrieved by dismissal of the suit are the appellants.
2. PLEADINGS:-
(a) Plaint in brief:
The suit properties belonged to late Venkatasamy. His three sons Thulasiraman, Subramani and Raji were in joint enjoyment and possession of the suit properties along with late Venkatasamy. The said Venkatasamy, died in 1995 and his wife, Kuppammal, the mother of the plaintiffs died in the year 2018. The suit items 1 to 14, are joint family properties. The suit items 15 and 16 were purchased in the names of Thulasiraman and Subramani respectively. However, the purchases were made from and out of joint family funds. The defendants are legal representatives of Thulasiraman. Item 17 of the suit property is a house put up by the three brothers, during the lifetime of their parents and the said house site is undivided. Items 18 and 19 are also house sites which are lying vacant. The second plaintiff filed a suit against his two brothers viz., Thulasiraman and Subramani in O.S. No.84 of 2000, before the Sub Court, Thiruvallur. The said suit was dismissed for default. In the said suit, certain items of properties were omitted and proper and
The court reinforced that a claim for partition, while a continuing right, can be barred by limitations if not promptly asserted after repudiation of rights by co-owners.
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 ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the burden of proof lies on the party claiming a prior partition, and in the absence of documentary evidence, unchallenged evidence of the opp....
The burden of proof lies with the party claiming partition to establish the division of properties, and the court may allow additional evidence if vital to decide the case.
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 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.
Unmarried daughters are recognized as coparceners in ancestral properties under the amended Hindu Succession Act, leading to equal rights in joint family assets.
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
