Back
RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY
Premlal Kadak – Appellant
Versus
Madhukar Kadak – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment & decree dated 10/02/2020 passed by Additional District Judge, Sausar, Distt. Chhindwara in Civil Appeal No.48-A/2018, whereby learned ADJ dismissed the appellants' appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 25/01/2018 passed by Civil Judge Class-I, Sausar, Distt. Chhindwara in Civil Suit No.2-A/2012, whereby learned Civil Judge Class-I partly allowed the suit and declared that respondent no.1 (Plaintiff of the case) is having 1/5th share in agricultural land survey no.340 area 1.618 hectare and 1/3rd share in the land survey no.342/3 area 2.022 hectare located at Halka Savanga, Tehsil Sausar (further referred to as Suit land) and is also entitled to get them partitioned and get vacant possession of his respective share in the suit lands post partition.
2. It is admitted between the parties that the land survey no.340 area 1.618 hectares was earlier owned by Ramchandra. He died in the year 1980. Ramchandra had three sons namely Madhukar (respondent no.1), Premlal (appellant no.1) and Vaman and two daughters Saraswati (respondent no.2) and Vimal (respondent no.3). Vama
Admissibility of documents as evidence and burden of proof in partition cases.
A party seeking partition must challenge the validity of prior transactions affecting the property and cannot seek partition of property that has been sold and is in the possession of third parties w....
A co-sharer’s right to ancestral property is inherent and cannot be extinguished by absence from the parental home.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove every link in a genealogy when a case is based on it, and the court's reliance on documentary evidence and oral witnesses ....
The absence of conclusive evidence for a prior partition entitles the plaintiff to a share in joint family properties, reaffirming the principle that the burden of proof lies with the defendants.
Joint family property is presumed until proven otherwise; prior partition must be established by metes and bounds to be valid.
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
