Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.SOUNTHAR
V.Chandrakala – Appellant
Versus
P.Rajammal (died) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff claims ancestral rights over properties. (Para 2 , 4 , 10) |
| 2. court deliberates on ancestral property rights post-partition. (Para 11 , 13 , 29) |
| 3. examined validity of will against natural inheritance principles. (Para 18 , 20 , 26) |
JUDGMENT :
S. Sounthar, J.
The unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for partition is the appellant. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in the suit.
2. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is the daughter of first defendant. The second defendant is the brother of the plaintiff and son of the first defendant. The defendants 3 and 4 are purchasers of suit 'B' schedule property from the second defendant. According to the plaintiff, the suit properties are ancestral properties of the family and the same was originally allotted to the share of the plaintiff's father's, father Sennimalai Gounder in a family partition dated 01.02.1957 involving said Sennimalai Gounder, his brother namely Ramasamy Gounder and minor Sennimalai Gounder. The suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties were allotted to the share of Sennimalai Gounder. Subsequently, there was another partition in the family on 03.12.1980, wher
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of ancestral properties available for partition and the validity of gift settlement deeds.
The absence of evidence proving the joint family status of properties allows a presumption that they are individual assets; thus, plaintiffs' claim for partition is dismissed.
A claimant must prove the ancestral nature of properties to claim entitlement under the amended Hindu Succession Act; mere assertions without evidence are insufficient.
Daughters became coparceners under Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989, allowing them equal rights in joint family properties.
In a partition suit, registered documents act as constructive notice, initiating the limitation period. Prolonged exclusive possession of ancestral property by a co-owner establishes ouster. Addition....
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....
The plaintiff failed to prove that the Suit 'B' Schedule properties were ancestral, and the Suit was barred by limitation under Article 60 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
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
