Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
N.SENTHILKUMAR
S.R.M. Packirirajan – Appellant
Versus
Minor P.U. Vijay Charan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case and petitioners. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the partition's validity. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. critical analysis of the plaint and requisite legal foundations. (Para 9) |
ORDER :
1. Challenging the order passed by the trial Court, dismissing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
2. The revision petitioners are the defendants 1 and 3 in the suit. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is not in consonance with the settled principles of law. He placed reliance on Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the same is extracted hereunder:
3. According to the revision petitioners, the suit has been instituted by a minor plaintiff claiming that the first defendant is his grandfather, the second defendant is his father and the third defendant is his paternal uncle, while the remaining defendants are official witnesses. It is the specific case of the revision petitioners that a family partition had already taken place on 25.03.1980 among the first defendant (grandf
A minor cannot seek partition of property post valid family partition among ancestors as it lacks legal foundation under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that unregistered agreements to sell do not confer ownership rights in immovable property, and the validity of such agreements is determined by the....
Only a registered sale deed conveys ownership; unregistered documents such as Agreements to Sell do not confer rights in property, making a suit based on them subject to rejection.
Unregistered agreements do not confer rights in property; a valid title requires a registered sale deed under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.
A suit challenging a sale deed executed prior to 20.12.2004 is barred by limitation and cannot be maintained under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Point of law: “Conduct of indifference or Acquiescence and held that, it is settled law that an estoppel may arise as against persons who have not willfully made any misrepresentation, and whose cond....
The daughters of a coparcener have no locus to question alienation made prior to the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, and the court can reject a plaint if it is manifestly vexatious and withou....
Previous family partition and lack of joint family status preclude the plaintiff from claiming coparcenary rights under Hindu law amendments.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a registered deed of conveyance for the transfer of immovable property, the preferential right to acquire property in certain ca....
The limitation period for challenging registered sale deeds starts upon acquiring knowledge of the transaction, not merely from the registration date, reaffirming the necessity of trial for evidentia....
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
