Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.MURALI SHANKAR
V.Kathiravan – Appellant
Versus
Veluchamy – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. partition claims and family properties (Para 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. limited right of appeal under section 100 cpc (Para 12 , 14 , 29) |
| 3. burden of proof for ancestral property (Para 16 , 18) |
| 4. legal principles regarding separate properties (Para 20 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. dismissing the appeal due to lack of grounds (Para 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT :
K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.
The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.144 of 2018 dated 18.11.2019 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.204 of 2013 dated 08.02.2018 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Dindigul.
2. The appellant is the plaintiff. He filed a suit claiming partition and allottment of ¼ share in the suit properties.
3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their status / ranking in the trial Court.
4. The case of the plaintiff, in short, is as follows:
(a) The plaintiff is the son and the defendants 2 and 3 are the daughters of the first defendant. The first item of the suit properties and some other properties originally owned by one Aanaiappapillai, father of the first defendan
The claim of property as ancestral requires proof of lineage and sufficient income, with living together not granting rights. The second appeal is restricted to substantial questions of law.
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.
The court affirmed that items 1 and 2 of suit properties are ancestral, and items 3 to 11 are self-acquired, highlighting the plaintiffs' burden to prove family property claims.
Ancestral properties must be proven to remain joint family properties post-partition; otherwise, they are deemed separate and not subject to partition claims.
The absence of evidence proving the joint family status of properties allows a presumption that they are individual assets; thus, plaintiffs' claim for partition is dismissed.
The court affirmed that admissions made during trial are binding, and ancestral properties cannot be dismissed based on a registered Partition Deed that does not negate the rights of coparceners.
In a partition suit, the burden of proving that property standing in an individual's name is joint family property lies upon the party asserting it, requiring proof of a sufficient ancestral nucleus.....
The burden of proof lies on the person claiming property as self-acquired to establish that it was acquired without the aid of joint family funds.
The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish that the properties are ancestral, and evidence must be pleaded and proved through evidence.
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
