Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C.Behera
Rajkishore Sahoo – Appellant
Versus
Dayanidhi @ Daitari Sahoo (dead) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's determination on rightful share based on inheritance. (Para 8 , 10 , 12 , 20 , 21 , 24 , 26) |
| 2. defendant claims invalidation of shares based on relinquishment. (Para 15 , 16 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
A.C. Behera, J.
This second appeal has been preferred against the confirming judgment.
2. The appellant in this second appeal was the defendant No.1 before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.199 of 1990 and appellant before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.50 of 1996.
The respondents in this second appeal were the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1(a) to 4 respectively before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.199 of 1990 and respondents before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.50 of 1996.
3. The suit of the plaintiff (respondent No.1 in this second appeal) before the Trial Court vide T.S. No.199 of 1990 against the defendants was a suit for partition.
4. The case of the plaintiff as per the averments made by him in his plaint was that, the Schedule ‘A’ genealogy given in the plaint is his family pedigree and the properties described in Schedule ‘C’ are the suit properties for partition.
As per the ‘A’ Schedule genealo
The relinquishment of property rights does not bar inheritance unless exercised during the transferor's lifetime under Section 43 of the T.P. Act.
The rejection of an application for additional evidence in a partition suit is appropriate when it serves to fill a lacuna rather than addressing substantial claims of ownership.
The presumption of joint family property necessitates proof of individual ownership; without such proof, a child has a right to claim share in ancestral property.
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 grants daughters co-parcener status from birth, making any prior relinquishment of rights invalid for partition claims.
A co-sharer cannot invoke the right to repurchase under Section 4 of the Partition Act without the stranger purchaser instituting a partition suit.
The court clarified the interpretation of Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act and held that it did not apply in this case, as it had been repealed and the plaintiffs had a right to seek partition ....
Unregistered relinquishment deeds lack legal efficacy in partition claims, and clear admissions in pleadings bind parties, negating further claims to share in property.
The judgment emphasizes the legal principle that mutation does not confer title and a co-sharer cannot relinquish their right without executing a relinquishment deed.
Joint ownership claims persist until partition; rights in a partition suit are not bound by limitation, and the burden to prove legal necessity for property transfer lies with the transferee.
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
