Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, C.SARAVANAN
R.Manikandan, S/o. Late M.Ramalingam – Appellant
Versus
S.Sridevi, W/o. L. Senthilkumar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's appeal against preliminary decree. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. dispute around undisclosed properties. (Para 5 , 6 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. necessity for cross-examination before decree. (Para 21 , 22 , 25) |
| 4. remand case for proper proceedings. (Para 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT :
C.SARAVANAN, J.
This Original Side Appeal has been filed by the 2nd Defendant in C.S.No.112 of 2021.
2. The 1st and 2nd Respondents are the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs in C.S.No.112 of 2021. The 3rd Respondent is the 1st Defendant in the civil suit. The 1st and 2nd Respondents herein (1st and 2nd Plaintiffs) are the sisters of the Appellant herein (2nd Defendant). The 3rd Respondent is the mother of the Appellant herein (2nd Defendant) and the 1st and 2nd respondents herein (1st and 2nd Plaintiffs).
3. The above civil suit was filed for partitioning 17 properties in the schedule to the plaint in C.S.No.112 of 2021. In the plaint, the 1st and 2nd Respondents have not brought all the properties for partition.
4. It is the case of the Appellant (2nd Defendant) that the 1st Respondent herein (1st Plaintiff) was examined as P.W.1 and was partly cross-examined. The case was thereafter listed before the Court on 08.04.20
Court emphasized the necessity of including all relevant properties in partition suits and the importance of allowing full cross-examination to uphold justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between ancestral property and self-acquired property in a partition suit, and the requirement for evidence to support claims of jo....
In partition suits, the burden of proof lies on the party claiming properties as joint family properties, not the plaintiff, who asserts they are separate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of legal heirs to the share of the deceased's properties, based on evidence and the validity of the Will.
A legal heir is entitled to an equal share in joint family properties, and claims of exclusive ownership must be substantiated by evidence.
The court upheld that evidence of prior oral partition negates subsequent claims for joint ownership and emphasizes the need for comprehensive evidence when seeking partition in familial disputes.
A Second Appeal lacks merit if it raises factual disputes already resolved by lower courts and does not present a substantial question of law.
The presumption of joint family status in Hindu law requires clear evidence to establish prior partition; the Appellate Court allowed partition of one property acquired post-partition while dismissin....
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
