IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI
Ranganathan, S/o. Lakshmana Gounder – Appellant
Versus
Uma, D/o. Ranganathan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in A.S.No.46 of 2019 dated 01.10.2024 passed by the II Addl. District Judge, Salem, confirming the judgment and decree dated 320.12.2018 in O.S.No.446 of 1999 passed by the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem, the appellant/1st defendant has preferred this Second Appeal.
2. Parties are indicated herein as per their litigative status and ranking before the Trial Court.
3. The averments contained in the plaint, as projected by the plaintiffs are as follows:
(i) According to the plaintiffs, the 3rd plaintiff is the wife of 1st defendant-Ranganathan. Out of their lawful wedlock, plaintiffs 1 and 2 were born to them. Defendants 2, 3 and 4 are the sisters of the 1st defendant. The defendants 1 to 4 are children of one Lakshmana Gounder and Perumayee.
(ii) The properties mentioned in the A schedule of the plaint are ancestral joint family properties of Lakshmana Gounder and by way of registered partition deed dated 11.12.1985, Lakshmana Gounder and his brother divided their ancestral properties. As per partition Deed, plaint B schedule properties were allotted jointly to Lakshmana Gounder and his son, the 1st defendant herei
The properties in question are ancestral under Hindu law, entitling family members to coparcenary rights, with the need for documentary evidence to challenge ancestral claims.
The court affirmed that items 1 and 2 of suit properties are ancestral, and items 3 to 11 are self-acquired, highlighting the plaintiffs' burden to prove family property claims.
The court reaffirmed that daughters have equal rights as sons in ancestral properties, emphasizing the applicability of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act.
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.
The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish that the properties are ancestral, and evidence must be pleaded and proved through evidence.
The burden of proof lies on asserting self-acquisition when joint family property is claimed, as evidenced in the judgment affirming the trial court's findings on property character.
Daughters became coparceners under Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989, allowing them equal rights in joint family properties.
Properties inherited from a divided father are considered separate and not ancestral, affecting claims for partition under Hindu law.
The ancestral nature of property was affirmed, and a Will executed by a deceased patriarch in favor of an illegitimate child was recognized as valid for 1/3rd share, pending partition.
Daughters have equal rights as coparceners in ancestral property under the Hindu Succession Act as amended in 2005, affecting share distribution in partition cases.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.