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 :
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].
PLAINTIFF'S CASE
3.1. While so, mother Perumayee passed away intestate on July 28, 2012. After the demise of Perumayee, the plaintiff and the first defendant are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the Suit properties. Thus, the plaintiff is a co-heir / co-owner entitled to ½ share in the suit properties.
3.3. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated December 17, 2012 to the first defendant seeking partition. The first defendant received the notice and did not come forward to partition the Suit Properties till date. Hence the Suit for partition and declaration that the Sale Deed dated October 15, 2012 executed in favour of the second defendant as null and void.
4.
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.
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.
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 ....
A partition can be pursued despite unproven Wills, affirming joint possession while emphasizing the need for valid claims against co-owners.
The court affirmed that admissions made during trial are binding, and ancestral properties cannot be dismissed based on a registered Partition Deed that does not negate the rights of coparceners.
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
