Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
R. Lakshmi – Appellant
Versus
R. Sellammal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
The present Second Appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment dated 22.11.2018 passed in A.S. No.7 of 2018, on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Erode at Bhavani confirming the Judgment and decree dated 07.11.2017 passed in O.S. No. 27 of 2013, on the file of the Sub Judge, Bhavani.
2.The unsuccessful plaintiff preferred this second appeal.
3.The plaintiff has filed the above suit for partition seeking to divide the 1st item of the suit property into 8 equal shares and to divide the remaining items into 4 equal shares and to one allot such share to the plaintiff and also for permanent injunction against encumbrance.
4.The case of the plaintiff is that she is the daughter of the 1st defendant and sister of the 2nd and 3rd defendants. The 1st item of the suit schedule property was jointly purchased by the plaintiff’s husband and her father namely S.V.Ramasamy Gounder, under a registered sale deed dated 08.05.1981. Thereafter, her husband sold his undivided half share to the 4th defendant on 23.11.2006. The rest of the properties are joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3. The said S.V.Ramasamy Gound
The plaintiff bears the burden of proof in asserting property as joint family assets, and failure to demonstrate the existence of a joint family or common funding negates claims to partition.
The court clarified that properties must be inherited or acquired from a joint family nucleus to be classified as ancestral under Hindu law, rejecting claims based solely on joint acquisition.
The validity of a Will executed by a testator in sound mind is upheld, establishing self-acquisition of property over claims of joint family ownership.
The ancestral nature of property was affirmed, and a Will executed by a deceased patriarch in favor of an illegitimate child was recognized as valid for 1/3rd share, pending partition.
The court affirmed that property treated as joint family property entitles the plaintiff to a 1/3rd share, ruling against the validity of a unilateral settlement deed.
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 plaintiff must prove joint family property status to succeed in partition claims; mere assertion is insufficient. The burden of proof emphasizes the need for substantial evidence.
The court reaffirmed that joint family properties cannot be unilaterally declared separate through a Will, especially when surrounded by suspicious circumstances regarding its execution.
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
