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 :
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.
3. The defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement and resisted the suit by contending that the suit 'C' schedule property was self acquired property of Ponnusamy. It was also stated that the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties were allotted to the share of Sennimalai Gounder with life estate and Ponnusamy was given vested remainder. As per the terms of said partition deed Ponnusamy got the property exclusively and enjoyed the same as absolute owner after death of Sennimalai Gounder. The defendants also raised a plea that Ponnusamy out of his free Will, executed a Will in favour of defendants 1 and 2 on 20.07.1995 As per the terms of the Will, the suit 'C' schedule property was bequeathed in favour of first defendant, his wife and suit 'A' and 'B' schedule propert
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.
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.
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.
Properties claimed as self-acquired were determined to be ancestral; the appeal for partition was dismissed due to lack of joint possession evidence and non-joinder of necessary parties, also barred ....
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
