Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.DHANABAL
Rajammal – Appellant
Versus
Rajammal – Respondent
Key Points: - The judgment states that a property purchased in a female’s name is presumed self-acquired unless proven otherwise under Benami Act Section 3(2)(a) (paras p_45, p_55). - It notes that there were no pleadings or issues framed regarding Benami transactions for Item No.10, and thus Benami arguments were not considered by the courts (paras p_52, p_54, p_55). - The courts below held items A schedule except Item No.10 as self-acquired of Raju Gounder, while Item No.10 was found to belong to Singarammal; appellate courts sustained the decree and dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court’s concurrent findings (paras p_39, p_49, p_53, p_56). - The High Court affirmed that once property is in a wife’s name, it is presumed self-acquired unless rebutted, which the evidence did not sufficiently rebut for Item No.10 (paras p_53, p_54, p_55). - Substantial questions of law addressed: Benami presumption under Section 3(2)(a) and its applicability given pleadings; source of purchase money and the need for pleadings to challenge Benami status; and the sufficiency of evidence to rebut the presumption (paras p_45–p_56).
JUDGMENT :
P. Dhanabal, J.
This second appeal has been preferred as against the judgment and decree dated 01.07.2015 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore, in A.S.No.23 of 2013. The appellants are the defendants 3 to 7. The respondents 1 to 3 herein have filed the main suit for partition as against the respondents 4 to 11 and the appellants herein. The Trial Court partly decreed the suit in respect of ‘A’ schedule property excluding Item No.10 declaring that the plaintiffs and defendants 9 to 14 are entitled to 1/8 share in ‘A’ schedule property excluding Item No.10 and dismissed the suit in respect of ‘B & C’ schedule properties. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the defendants 3 to 8 have preferred an appeal in A.S.No.23 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Court, Vellore and the said appeal was dismissed by confirming the decree and judgment passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the present second appeal has been preferred by the defendants 3 to 7.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in the Trial Court and at appropriate places, their rank in the present second appeal would
The property purchased in a female's name is presumed self-acquired unless proven otherwise; claims under the Benami Act require appropriate pleadings and evidence.
In a partition suit, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the joint family status and income sources of the properties claimed, failing which the suit may be dismissed.
In family property disputes, the onus lies on claimants to prove joint ownership; properties recorded in female names are presumed to be theirs unless specifically evidenced otherwise.
The court affirmed that daughters are coparceners entitled to equal shares in ancestral property, overriding claims of separate ownership based on the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act.
Daughters became coparceners under Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989, allowing them equal rights in joint family properties.
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.
Will - In terms of Section 68 of the Evidence Act read with Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, it is obligatory on the part of the appellant to examine the attestors of this Will.
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
