Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.MURALI SHANKAR
R.Palanivel – Appellant
Versus
M.Ramasamy (died) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appeal is against lower court's judgment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. high court's jurisdiction under section 100 cpc. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. dispute over property ownership and ancestral claims. (Para 6 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. entitlement shares among heirs after father's remarriage. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. first appellate court's findings and evidence evaluation. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. second appeal dismissed; confirmation of lower court judgments. (Para 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
K. Murali Shankar, J.
The Second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.27 of 2017, dated 19.07.2025 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge (PCR) Thanjavur, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.240 of 2012, dated 21.04.2017 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Thanjavur.
2. The appellant is the plaintiff. He filed the suit in O.S.No.240 of 2012 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Thanjavur, against his father Thiru.Ramasamy and the first respondent herein claiming partition and allotment of 1/2 share in 'B' schedule property and for allotment of ½ share in the 'C' schedule amount lying in the account of his father Ramasamy in the first respondent'
The High Court's review under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code is restricted to substantial questions of law, with no interference allowed on factual findings absent error.
The High Court's jurisdiction in a second appeal is limited to substantial questions of law, with no re-appraisal of factual findings made by lower courts; the burden of proof for joint family proper....
The High Court's review under Section 100 CPC is limited to substantial questions of law and does not allow re-evaluation of factual findings made by lower courts.
The right to inherit properties can be lost due to delay in claiming partition, as seen in cases of ouster and adverse possession.
The burden of proof on the plaintiffs to establish the disputed properties as joint family properties and the application of settled principles of law in determining the entitlement to the properties....
High Court cannot re-appreciate facts in second appeal unless substantial question of law shown and propounder must prove Will per statutory mandates.
The claim of property as ancestral requires proof of lineage and sufficient income, with living together not granting rights. The second appeal is restricted to substantial questions of law.
The court ruled that properties devolved under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act are not ancestral and thus not subject to partition among 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
