Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D.MARIA CLETE
K.S.Palanisamy – Appellant
Versus
Parvathiammal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of pleadings, trial findings on exclusive possession. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 7) |
| 2. appellant/respondent arguments on ouster, limitation. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. ouster proved by hostile exclusive possession, knowledge. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. suit bad for non-joinder of necessary co-sharers. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. partial partition bars suit given omitted properties. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. appeal dismissed, rights extinguished by limitation. (Para 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT :
A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.
1.This Appeal Suit is filed by plaintiff challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 01.09.2018 passed in O.S. No.247 of 2013 on the file of the III Additional District - cum- Sessions Court, Erode at Gobichettipalayam.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in this judgment in the same rank as they were arrayed before the Trial Court
3. The plaintiff’s case, in brief, is that the suit properties are the ‘B’ Schedule properties which fell to the share of Chinnappagounder, the plaintiff’s maternal grandfather, under a family Partition Deed dated 10.07.1956. According to the plaintiff, after the death of Chinnappagounder intestate in 19
Ouster among co-sharers requires hostile animus, long exclusive possession known to other co-owner; mere possession insufficient.
A claim for partition can prevail despite long possession by others if there is insufficient proof of ouster or adverse possession against a co-parcener. Limitation Act principles apply to claims acc....
A co-parcener's possession is presumed to be joint; mere exclusive possession by another does not constitute adverse possession without evidence of hostile intent, supporting the right to partition.
Possession of one co-parcener is deemed possession of all; mere long possession does not establish adverse possession without evidence of ouster.
The amendment of co-parcenery rights retroactive effects and joint possession presumption prevent claims of ouster without substantial evidence.
The court affirmed that daughters are entitled to equal shares in ancestral properties post-amendment, invalidating wrongful transactions made without their consent.
In a partition suit, registered documents act as constructive notice, initiating the limitation period. Prolonged exclusive possession of ancestral property by a co-owner establishes ouster. Addition....
(1) Principle that there cannot be a partial partition is not an absolute one – It admits of exceptions. Properties not in possession of co-sharers/coparceners being omitted cannot result in a suit f....
In the absence of partition or relinquishment, a co-parcener cannot be said to have lost their rights over ancestral properties.
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
