Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, K.KUMARESH BABU
B. Brinda – Appellant
Versus
G.B.S. Naidu (alias) G.S. Bhaskara Rao Naidu – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Mr. K. KUMARESH BABU, J.
1. This Original Suit Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the suit for partition was decreed only in respect of the Schedule ‘C’ property and dismissed insofar as the other schedule properties are concerned. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the learned Single Judge.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that, one late Srihari Naidu was the owner of certain properties, including the Schedule ‘B’ property. He is the father of the first defendant and the grandfather of the plaintiffs and the second defendant. The third defendant is the wife of the second defendant. The Schedule ‘A’ property was originally allotted to Srihari Naidu and subsequently stood in the name of the first defendant. The Schedule ‘C’ property stood in the name of the mother of the plaintiffs. The Schedule ‘D’, ‘E’, ‘G’, and ‘H’ properties stood in the name of the second defendant, and the Schedule ‘F’ property stood in the name of the third defendant.
3. Claiming that all the schedule properties are ancestra
The court affirmed that properties devolving under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act are absolute and not ancestral, emphasizing that mere assertions cannot establish joint family character witho....
Widow's right to claim share in ancestral property established under Hindu Succession Act, where properties purchased through ancestral nucleus retain joint family character.
The central legal point established is the recognition of ancestral properties and the source of income for property purchase in determining property rights.
Daughters became coparceners under Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989, allowing them equal rights in joint family properties.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of ancestral properties available for partition and the validity of gift settlement deeds.
The mere description of property as ancestral does not establish its nature; evidence of purchase and settlement deeds is essential for determining ownership.
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting that property is joint family property, and mere existence of a joint family does not presume property to be joint.
Court ruled that ancestral property retains its character despite prior partition and upheld the validity of a Will despite exclusion of a natural heir.
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
