Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.JAYACHANDRAN
Suresh – Appellant
Versus
Kannagi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim for partition emerges from historical government claims. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. disputes of ownership established through previous lawsuits. (Para 5 , 7 , 10) |
JUDGMENT :
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
1. This Appeal Suit is directed against the order of the Court below dated 15.02.2022, passed in I.A. No. 107 of 2019 in O.S. No. 34 of 2019, on the file of the III Additional District Court, Kallakurichi, rejecting the plaint.
2. Plaint averments:
The suit for partition was filed by one Suresh, against Athiyappa Gounder and seven others, on the premise that the suit property was originally held by Kurumba Gounder Jahirdhar. On the advent of the Jahir Abolition Act, the State Government acquired the property by way of Government Order dated 05.01.1966. Subsequently, compensation was paid to Kurumba Gounder vide proceedings dated 25.06.1981.
3. Thereafter, under the Inam Settlement Scheme and after due enquiry, patta was issued in favour of Sengoda Gounder, the great grandfather of the plaintiff and Athiyappa Gounder, the first defendant. Joint Patta No. 146, dated 15.11.1977, was issued in the names of Sengoda Gounder and Athiyappa Gounder and the property was enjoyed by their res
Claims re-agitating settled property disputes are barred by res judicata, adhering to principles of finality in litigation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plea of res judicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues, and decision in the previous suit, which is beyond the scope of Orde....
The plaintiff's mother became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties by virtue of the Ryotwari Patta granted in her name under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversi....
The right to seek partition is inherent and continuous for co-owners; prior dismissal of a partition suit does not bar subsequent suits, provided the parties are different.
A preliminary decree in a suit for partition merely declares shares that parties are entitled to in any of properties included in plaint schedule and liable to partition--On the basis of a mere decla....
The court emphasized that the present suit does not hit Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C. and there is a cause of action to file the present suit.
In disputes regarding partition of joint Hindu family property, the burden of proof lies on the party asserting partition, and the presumption of jointness remains unless clear evidence to the contra....
The appellate court determined that the First Appellate Court erred in not properly evaluating the ownership evidence, resulting in incorrect distribution of property rights and affirming the Plainti....
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
