Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.
T. Sudhakar and Ors. – Appellants
versus
Sadacharam and Ors. – Respondents
AS. Nos.712 & 713 of 2012 and
M.P. Nos.1 of 2012 & 1 of 2014
Decided on 10.01.2024
(A) Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 63(c) – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 68 and 69 – Suits for partition, declaration and injunction – Will as source of title to property – Registered Will is aged more than 30 years – In the event where attesting witness may have died or cannot be found, Propounder is not helpless, as Section 69 of Evidence Act, 1872 is applicable – Since, both attesting witnesses have not been examined, in terms of Section 69 of the Act it was incumbent upon plaintiff to prove that attestation of atleast one attesting witness is in his handwriting and that signature of the person executing document is in handwriting of that person – Trial Court rightly allowed suit for partition and dismissed suit for declaration and injunction.(Paras 12, 13 and 14)
(B) Hindu Law – Partition – If members of a family who are joint in status and carry on business and acquire property by their joint labour and exertions without aid of any ancestral nucleus presumption is that property so acquired by them would be joint family property in which sons would get right by birth – Presumption is in favour of its being regarded as joint family property.(Para 10)
Result: Appeal Suits dismissed.
JUDGMENT (COMMON)
G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.—The plaintiff in O.S.No.88 of 2009 and the 3rd defendant in O.S.No.101 of 2008 is the appellant in A.S.No.712 of 2012. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.101 of 2008 and the defendants in O.S.No.88 of 2009 are the respondents in A.S.No.713 of 2012.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial Court.
3. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.101 of 2008 filed the suit for partition and the plaintiff in O.S.No.88 of 2009 filed the suit for declaration and injunction. In both suits, suit property is one and the same and the parties are one and the same. Therefore, the trial Court passed common judgement and decree dated 14.11.2011 in both the suits.
4. The case of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.101 of 2008 is that the suit property originally belonged to one Vadivel Pillai, who is the father of Vijayarangam Pillai. The first item of the suit property was purchased by him under registered sale deed dated 18.05.1994 and the second item of the suit property is the ancestral property. After demise of said Vadivel Pillai, the said properties were devolved on his son Vijayarangam Pillai. The suit properties are the joint family co-parcenary properties of said Vijayarangam Pillai and plaintiffs 2 to 7 and 1st defendant. They are entitled to have 1/8th share on the demise of Vijayarangam Pillai, who died intestate on 27.06.2008. Therefore, each plaintiff and the first defendant are entitled to have 9/64th share in the suit properties. The defendants 2 and 3 in O.S.No.101 of 2008 are the sons of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant issued notice to the plaintiffs on 12.07.2008, claiming that the 1st defendant had executed a registered settlement deed in their favour in respect of the suit properties on 23.05.2006. Since the suit properties are the joint family properties, the first defendant had no right or title over the property to execute settlement deed in favour of his sons. Hence the suit for partition.
5. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.88 of 2009 is that the suit properties were derived by his grandfather. Before demise of Vadivel Pillai, he had executed a settlement deed dated 23.05.2006 in favour of the plaintiff and his brother one, Dinesh Kumar. Thereafter, he died on 27.06.2008 intestate leaving behind the defendants as his legal heirs. Immediately, after settlement deed, they accepted the settlement deed and had taken possession of the suit properties. The revenue records were also mutated in their name and they cultivated in the suit properties. However, the defendants in order to grab the property, they trespassed into the suit property and create problem. Therefore, they also lodged a complaint and filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The plaint filed by the plaintiff is the written statement for other suit filed by the defendants. After completion of pleading in both the suits, the trial court framed following issues in O.S.No.101 of 2008:
[Matter in other language]
In O.S.No.101 of 2008, the trial court also framed the following additional issues:
[Matter in other language]
After completion of pleadings in O.S.No.88 of 2009, the trial court framed the following issues :
[Matter in other language]
6. In Both the suits P.W.1 & P.W.2 were examined and marked exhibits A1 to A8. On the side of the defendants they had examined D.W.1 to D.W.5 and marked exhibits B1 to B41. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court allowed the suit for partition and dismissed the suit for declaration and injunction. Aggrieved by both the judgements and decrees, plaintiff in O.S.No.88 of 2009 and the defendants in O.S.No.101 of 2008 have preferred these appeal suits.
7. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that insofar as the first item of the suit property itself is a self-acquired property of Vadivel Pillai. Insofar as 2nd item of the suit property is concerned, it is an ancestral property and as such they are not pressing the
If members of a family who are joint in status and carry on business and acquire property by their joint labour and exertions without aid of any ancestral nucleus presumption is that property so acqu....
The court affirmed that ancestral property rights under the Hindu Succession Act grant a daughter the right to claim partition; a Will must be proven validly to be binding.
In property disputes, properties obtained through partition are considered self-acquired, affirming the right of absolute ownership and the validity of subsequent transfers unless proven otherwise.
The court clarified that properties must be inherited or acquired from a joint family nucleus to be classified as ancestral under Hindu law, rejecting claims based solely on joint acquisition.
The plaintiff bears the burden of proof in asserting property as joint family assets, and failure to demonstrate the existence of a joint family or common funding negates claims to partition.
The father of the coparceners had no right to bequeath ancestral property via Will. Wills are invalid unless proven in accordance with statutory requirements.
The trial Court must examine the plaint's averments to determine if a cause of action exists, rather than rejecting it based solely on the defendant's claims.
A party is estopped from making claims contrary to prior admissions in legal notices, and a partition deed signed by the plaintiff is binding, rendering any claims of joint ownership barred by limita....
A suit for partition filed after the limitation period is barred; knowledge of exclusion triggers the 12-year limit under the Limitation Act. Ancestral property cannot be alienated unilaterally by a ....
Properties cannot be presumed joint family properties unless proven to derive from sufficient income or surplus of ancestral properties.
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
