Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.SAKTHIVEL
Sellammal – Appellant
Versus
Palanisamy – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conflict over property ownership and partition claim by co-heir. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments presented by both sides regarding property classification. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT :
R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated August 21, 2017 passed in O.S.No.2 of 2013 by 'the Additional District Court, Namakkal' ['Trial Court' for brevity], the plaintiff therein has filed this Appeal Suit under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of 'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ['CPC' for short].
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE
3. The plaintiff is the sister of the first defendant. Second defendant is the purchaser of the Suit Properties from the first defendant vide Sale Deed dated October 15, 2012. The Suit Properties belonged to the father of plaintiff and first defendant, namely one Muthusamy Gounder, as his self-acquired properties by virtue of a Sale Deed dated September 7, 1940. Father Muthusamy Gounder passed away intestate in or about 1968, leaving behind his wife - Perumayee, the plaintiff and the first defendant as his legal heirs. The plaintiff,
The amendment of co-parcenery rights retroactive effects and joint possession presumption prevent claims of ouster without substantial evidence.
The court affirmed that co-owners retain rights unless clear ouster is proven, and limitation laws do not apply to partition claims under the Hindu Succession Act.
Ouster among co-sharers requires hostile animus, long exclusive possession known to other co-owner; mere possession insufficient.
The court affirmed that daughters are entitled to equal shares in ancestral properties post-amendment, invalidating wrongful transactions made without their consent.
A claim for partition can prevail despite long possession by others if there is insufficient proof of ouster or adverse possession against a co-parcener. Limitation Act principles apply to claims acc....
A co-parcener's possession is presumed to be joint; mere exclusive possession by another does not constitute adverse possession without evidence of hostile intent, supporting the right to partition.
Possession of one co-parcener is deemed possession of all; mere long possession does not establish adverse possession without evidence of ouster.
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....
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
