Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.MALA
B. Rajendran S/o Balaraman – Appellant
Versus
Subramani S/o Balaraman – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment of facts and ownership history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 15) |
| 2. parties argument regarding existence of oral family settlement. (Para 7 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. assessment of evidence and findings on succession. (Para 14 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 24 , 26) |
| 4. relinquishment of immovable property requires registered instrument. (Para 22 , 23 , 25) |
| 5. final dismissal of appeal and confirmation of decree. (Para 27) |
JUDGMENT :
N. MALA, J.
1. The First Appeal is filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 06.02.2023, made in OS.No.3093/2020, by the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. The facts in a nutshell, are as follows.
4. The plaintiff is the co-owner of the property and the defendant is his elder brother. The plaintiff filed a suit in OS.No.3093/2020 for partition of his half share in the suit property and for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from in any manner, effecting mutation in revenue records or alienating or encumbering the suit property.
5. The plaintiff and the defendant are the s
A relinquishment of rights in immovable property is legally ineffective unless executed via a registered instrument; oral agreements claiming such relinquishments are insufficient to override statuto....
Family arrangements promoting peace and preventing disputes are upheld; oral partitions must be substantiated by clear evidence to be enforceable.
In the absence of established oral partition, co-owners have equal shares in the property, as per Section 47 of the Transfer of Property Act.
The burden of proof regarding oral partition rests on the party asserting it, with mere pleading insufficient for presumption.
The court ruled that an oral partition was established and the plaintiff cannot claim partial partition without including all relevant properties, adhering to heirs' rights under Hindu law.
The heavy burden of proof upon the proponent of oral partition before it is accepted, as per the settled principle of law by the Apex Court.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the burden of proof lies on the party claiming a prior partition, and in the absence of documentary evidence, unchallenged evidence of the opp....
Existence of an unregistered family arrangement deed does not confer partition rights absent proper registration and stamp duty where required by law.
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
