Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, M.JOTHIRAMAN
R. Kamala – Appellant
Versus
R.R. Parthiban – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Unsuccessful defendants 1 & 2 have preferred the appeal in A.S.(MD)No.32 of 2023 against O.S.No.50 of 2014. Unsuccessful plaintiffs have preferred appeal in A.S.(MD)No.11 of 2023 against O.S.No.65 of 2016.
2. The first respondent/plaintiff/Parthipan filed a suit in O.S.No.50 of 2014 seeking the relief of declaration to declare the registered settlement deed (Ex.A19) executed by the first appellant/Kamala in favour of her daughter the second appellant/Jeyanthi in respect of item No.3 in suit second schedule namely the house property as null and void and further, relief of partition of the suit property schedule 1 to schedule 3 and allot 5/16 shares in his favour.
3. The above suit in O.S.No.50 of 2014 was allowed by the trial Court thereby, the settlement deed in Ex.A19 is declared as null and void and so far as the relief of partition the trial Court granted the relief of partition to the extent of ¼ shares as against 5/16th shares as claimed and partly decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment dated 30.09.2022 the defendants one and two have preferred the appeal in A.S.
4. The first and second defendants namely, Kamala and Jeyanthi (in O.S.No.50 of 2014
The judicial presumption of joint ownership requires proof of a family nucleus, and mere existence of a joint family does not automatically classify all properties as joint.
Claims of property ownership must be substantiated with credible evidence, as allegations of trust do not override the Benami Transactions Act without proof of fraud.
Daughters became coparceners under Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989, allowing them equal rights in joint family properties.
In partition suits concerning benami transactions, the burden of proving such claims lies with the defendants; failure to do so results in equal distribution of shares among legal heirs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the property was purchased with the income of the father, and the settlement deeds were obtained through fraud and coercion, leading to the en....
Properties cannot be presumed joint family properties unless proven to derive from sufficient income or surplus of ancestral properties.
The court reaffirmed that property originally purchased individually can be treated as joint family property when members act collectively and share resources, affecting rights associated with subseq....
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.
The court affirmed that property treated as joint family property entitles the plaintiff to a 1/3rd share, ruling against the validity of a unilateral settlement deed.
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
