Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
Manimegalai – Appellant
Versus
Bakkiyam – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appellant claimed 1/3 share in property. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. defendants assert self-acquired status of properties. (Para 4 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. suit and appeal were dismissed by courts below. (Para 5 , 6 , 9) |
| 4. court analyzed property nature and burden of proof. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. no interference warranted in lower court findings. (Para 14) |
| 6. second appeal dismissed with confirmed lower court's judgment. (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The present Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 14.07.2016 in A.S. No.5 of 2016 on the file of Principal District Court, Darmapuri, confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2015 passed in O.S. No.37 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Harur.
3. The appellant as plaintiff filed the above suit for partition claiming 1/3 share in the suit properties. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant are daughter and son of the 1st defendant. On 09.01.1986, the suit properties were purchased from one Muthusamy vagaiyara and the same was enjoyed by the plaintiff and defendants along with their father Sundaram @ Muthu Gounder. The suit properties were purchased by selling the ancestral property on 13.
A claimant must prove the ancestral nature of properties to claim entitlement under the amended Hindu Succession Act; mere assertions without evidence are insufficient.
The burden of proof lies on the person claiming property as self-acquired to establish that it was acquired without the aid of joint family funds.
The court ruled that an oral partition established the properties as separate and self-acquired, barring claims for partition after 18 years and validating a gift deed executed by the coparcener.
In property disputes, properties obtained through partition are considered self-acquired, affirming the right of absolute ownership and the validity of subsequent transfers unless proven otherwise.
Court ruled that ancestral property retains its character despite prior partition and upheld the validity of a Will despite exclusion of a natural heir.
The properties in question were determined to be ancestral, granting coparcenary rights to the daughter under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that properties derived by the father through a partition deed are to be treated as his self-acquired properties, as per Section 8 of the Hindu Suc....
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
