Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, R.VIJAYAKUMAR
Vijayalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
Mohammed Bilal, S/o.Sheik Dawood – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment of ownership and claims in partition. (Para 2 , 6 , 12) |
| 2. procedural requirements for unsound mind claims upheld. (Para 27 , 50 , 60) |
| 3. contentions regarding mental capacity challenged by the respondent. (Para 31 , 34 , 36) |
| 4. binding nature of properly executed sales reinforced. (Para 66) |
JUDGMENT :
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
The plaintiffs in O.S.No.8 of 2018 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Tiruchirappalli, being aggrieved by the dismissal of the said suit by the common judgment dated 25.10.2024 passed in O.S.No.8 of 2018 and O.S.No.142 of 2019, have filed A.S.(MD)No.98 of 2025. The same plaintiffs were the defendants in O.S.No.142 of 2019. The said suit was decreed by the common judgment dated 25.10.2024 passed in both the suits, O.S.No.8 of 2018 and O.S.No.142 of 2019. They have filed A.S.(MD)No.97 of 2025.
2. O.S.No.8 of 2018 had been filed seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties.
3. O.S.No.142 of 2019 had been filed seeking recovery of possession in respect of the ‘A’ schedule property and permanent injunction restraining interference with possession in respect of the ‘B’ schedule property. It is pertine
The court upheld the validity of property sales despite claims of mental incapacity due to improper legal procedure, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to legal requirements in such claims.
The sale deed executed by defendants in favor of the 4th defendant was invalid to the extent of the plaintiff's undivided share in the property.
The burden of proving insanity, the presumption of sanity, and the principle of approbate and reprobate were the central legal points established in the judgment.
The court can conduct an inquiry into the unsoundness of mind of a party to a suit before or during the pendency of the suit, as per Order 32, Rule 15 CPC.
A sale deed is deemed null and void if the vendor lacks valid title to the property sold, as established by the auction process under the Financial Corporation Act.
The court ruled that plaintiffs failed to prove a mortgage, and the property was validly sold, negating their claims to the property as heirs.
The burden to prove title in a property dispute lies with the plaintiff, requiring evidence such as a registered sale deed, even when seeking alternative relief of possession.
In property disputes, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish ownership through valid documentation, and appellate courts uphold concurrent findings unless legally erroneous.
Presumption under Section 90 of Evidence Act is applicable to Wills – Registration, by itself, in all cases, is not a proof of execution.
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
