Back
S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
Sajal Datta – Appellant
Versus
Kajal Datta – Respondent
JUDGMENT & ORDER
S.D. Purkayastha, J. - The Judgment dated 29.08.2022 passed by the learned District Judge, South Tripura, Belonia in Title Appeal No. 04/2021 and consequent decree thereof are under challenge in the second appeal on the following substantial question of law:
A. Whether a legal heir can be denied the share of the ancestral undivided property, left behind by the late father, only on the ground that he had purchased a portion of the land from his father during the life time of the father.
B. Any other substantial question of law may be framed at the time of hearing.
2. Originally one Sri Srimanta Kumar Datta (original plaintiff i.e. predecessor of present appellant and respondents), Sri Hemanta Kumar Datta (Proforma respondent No.6), and Lt. Sri Sudhir Chandra Datta (predecessor of proforma respondents 7(a), (b)(i-iii), were three brothers. Said original plaintiff filed the involved suit bearing TS(P) No.50/2014 against his said brother Sri Hemanta Kumar Datta and legal representatives of his deceased brother Sri Sudhir Chandra Datta and also impleaded one of his sons, i.e. the appellant, as defendant therein, praying for partition of the suit land consisting of five numb
Legal heirs cannot be denied their rightful share in ancestral property without clear evidence of prior transactions affecting their inheritance rights.
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.
A claim of partition in Hindu joint family property must be substantiated with credible evidence; conjecture does not suffice.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish the remaining land after a sale of joint family property and the probative value of registered documents in determi....
A co-sharer’s right to ancestral property is inherent and cannot be extinguished by absence from the parental home.
[The court established that in disputes over ancestral property, the burden of proof lies on the party claiming self-acquisition, and transactions lacking legal necessity may be deemed void.]
The court upheld the presumption of joint family property, ruling that no valid partition had been established, thus entitling the plaintiffs to their shares.
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
