Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
Rajammal – Appellant
Versus
Palaniammal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
The present Second Appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment dated 21.11.2020 passed in A.S. No.5 of 2015, on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruchengode, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 19.09.2014 passed in O.S. No.264 of 2009, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode.
2. The parties are described as per the litigative status before the trial court.
3. The material facts that are necessary for deciding the present Second Appeal are hereunder:
3.1. The case of the plaintiff is that, the suit properties are joint family properties situate in Padaveedu village, Tiruchengode Taluk, originally purchased by the common ancestor, Palani Gounder, under registered sale deeds dated 29.06.1930 bearing document numbers 1822/1930 and 1829/1930. The said Palani Gounder had two sons, namely Palani Gounder and Sengoda Gounder. The plaintiff is the wife of Sengoda Gounder and the 1st defendant is the wife of Palani Gounder. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff Karupayee died and her daughter Rajammal was impleaded as her legal heir. Likewise the 1st defendant Pavayee died and her two daughters, namely, Palaniammal a
The burden to prove an oral partition lies with the party asserting it; mere revenue entries do not suffice to establish partition without clear evidence.
The heavy burden of proof upon the proponent of oral partition before it is accepted, as per the settled principle of law by the Apex Court.
The court established that the burden of proof for oral partition lies with the party asserting it, and mere testimony from interested parties is insufficient without corroborating evidence.
The main legal point established is that the plaintiff's possession was proved through various documents, and the first defendant had no standing to dispute the partition.
The court ruled that an oral partition was established and the plaintiff cannot claim partial partition without including all relevant properties, adhering to heirs' rights under Hindu law.
The burden of proof in establishing the existence and extent of an oral partition lies with the party claiming such partition.
The absence of conclusive evidence for a prior partition entitles the plaintiff to a share in joint family properties, reaffirming the principle that the burden of proof lies with the defendants.
Partition claims require substantial evidence of family status and prior division; mere admissions during cross-examination do not prove separation.
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
