Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.MURALI SHANKAR
Anjalam – Appellant
Versus
Kamalayee – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. process of appeal and relevant procedure. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. jurisdiction limits of the high court in second appeals. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 20) |
| 3. children's inheritance rights in ancestral property. (Para 6 , 7 , 14) |
| 4. possession rights among joint owners. (Para 15 , 18) |
| 5. conclusion on dismissal of second appeal. (Para 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
K. Murali Shankar, J.
The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.16 of 2019 dated 12.11.2024 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.30 of 2015 dated 31.10.2017 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Vedasandur.
2. The appellant is the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No. 313 of 2011 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul claiming partition and allotment of 1/10th share in the suit properties. The third defendant and the defendants 5 and 6 filed separate written statements and contested the suit. The defendants 1, 2, 4 and 7 to 9 remained exparte. Subsequently, the suit was transferred to the file of the Subordinate Court, Vedasandur and the same was taken on file in O.S.No.30 of 2015. The learned Subordinate Judge, Ved
The right to inherit properties can be lost due to delay in claiming partition, as seen in cases of ouster and adverse possession.
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 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 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 possession of property by a co-owner does not amount to adverse possession against other co-owners unless clear ouster is proven.
The court upheld the entitlement of the plaintiff's share in ancestral properties and directed the determination of her legal heirs and the validity of her Will before distribution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the acceptance of evidence and facts regarding earlier oral partition and relinquishment of share, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's suit....
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
