Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.MURALI SHANKAR
Arunachala Velar (Died) – Appellant
Versus
Udhuman Syed Mohammed (Died) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts and history of title to the suit property (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 30) |
| 2. defendants’ contentions regarding title and limitation (Para 5 , 7 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 31 , 35 , 36) |
| 3. procedural history and evidence adduced (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 23 , 37) |
| 4. section 100 cpc limitations and supreme court rulings (Para 12 , 13 , 38) |
| 5. authentication and identity of property documents (Para 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 6. validity of partition under mohammedan law (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 7. final findings and dismissal of second appeals (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
JUDGMENT :
K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.
1.These two Second Appeals are directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.147 of 2012 dated 23.01.2018 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1264 of 1987 dated 29.06.2012 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli.
2. The appellants in S.A.(MD)No.310 of 2018 are the defendants 1 and 2 and the appellant in S.A.(MD)No.167 of 2020 is the fourth defendant. The deceased first respondent in both the appeals as plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.1264 of 1987 before the
Registered partition deed between brothers under Mohammedan law creates valid title; High Court cannot re-appreciate facts absent substantial question of law in second appeal.
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....
The appellate court misdirected its assessment, failing to recognize that property ownership and identity were sufficiently proven by prior deeds and tax records.
Ownership must be substantiated by credible documentary evidence; mere revenue entries are insufficient to establish title against documented claims.
The distinction between judgment in rem and judgment in personam, and the binding nature of judgment in rem on anyone claiming interest in the property.
The principle of feeding the grant by estoppel allows a subsequent acquisition of title to validate an earlier transfer made by a person who lacked title at the time of the transfer, thereby protecti....
The plaintiff's establishment of ownership to a high degree of probability shifted the onus to the defendant, leading to the plaintiff's burden of proof being deemed discharged. The suit was maintain....
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
