Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 13813
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice G.ARUL MURUGAN
N.PANDARINATHAN – Appellant
Versus
M.MURUGAN – Respondent
The judgment affirms that in cases of family property disputes, clear evidence of partition and subsequent ownership must be established, with the burden on the party contesting an admitted partition.
Headnote:
Property - Family Partition - Act Section List - The court analyzed the validity of an oral partition among heirs and the subsequent property rights and transfers. Key legal provisions concerning proof of ownership, burden of proof on the plaintiff, and the implications of oral partition were central to the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arises from the plaintiffs' claim to a property inherited from their deceased parents, which they allege was acquired through an oral partition. The defendants contend that the suit property was not included in that partition and thus claim a share.
Finding of the Court:
The trial and appellate courts found that the defenses raised regarding the exclusion of the suit property from the oral partition were unsubstantiated. The plaintiff demonstrated ownership and possession through documentation and conduct, overriding the defendants' claims.
Issues: Whether the courts below erred in determining the existence and implications of an oral partition and the burden of proof in establishing property claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once oral partition was admitted, the onus is on the defendants to prove exclusions from that partition. The plaintiff’s evidence of ownership and possession was deemed sufficient.
Final Decision: The second appeal is dismissed, supporting the lower courts' rulings on ownership and the efficacy of the oral partition.
JUDGMENT
The defendants in the suit are the appellants herein. The Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2012 passed in AS.No.35 of 2011 on the file of District Judge, Thiruvannamalai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 13.10.2011 passed in OS.No.138 of 2009 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. The brief facts in the plaint:
3. According to the plaintiff, the suit property along with other properties originally belonged to Narasimma Naidu and his wife. Narasimma Naidu had three sons, namely Pandarinathan, Ethiraj and Vasudevan and two daughters namely Kasthuri and Kumari. Both Narasimma Naidu and his wife died intestate, and the five children had inherited the suit properties. According to the plaintiff, the five children have already divided all the suit properties about 10 years ago, and they are also in separate possession in their respective shares.
4. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant was allotted lands and a double storied RCC building house. The other brothers Ethiraj and Vasudevan were allotted 0.03 cents each and the two daughters were jointly allotted 0.01 cents totally 0.07 cents which is the suit property. The two brothers and two daughters who were allotted the suit property measuring about 0.07 cents, under a registered sale deed dated 21.06.2005 in Ex.A.1 had conveyed the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. The first defendant was bargaining with the vendors of the plaintiff for a long time for conveyance of suit properties and was not successful. Since the plaintiff had purchased the suit property, he started to give troubles. The plaintiff had put up a tea shop and a thatched house and is residing there carrying on business, by paying the house tax and the business tax. The patta no. 382 was also issued for the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. However, on 14.10.2009, the defendants attempted to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
5. The defendants resisted the suit by filing the written statement. The defendants had admitted that the suit property along with other properties belonged to Narasimma Naidu and his wife and after the demise of Narasimma Naidu, it was inherited by the five children. According to the defendants though they admitted that there was a partition in the family by which the properties were divided among the five legal heirs, the suit property alone was not included in the oral partition. Further, according to the defendants, after the properties were orally divided in the year 1990, Vasudevan, his brother, had alienated the house allotted to him under the oral partition to Sheik Kamal through a registered sale deed dated 10.11.1998. Similarly, another brother, Ethiraj, had alienated his vacant site by demolishing the house and conveying it to the first defendant under a registered sale deed dated 20.09.1995. According to the first defendant in the vacant site allotted to him in the oral partition, he has constructed a two storied terraced house. However, according to the first defendant since the suit property alone was not included in the oral partition, he is entitled to 1/5th share in the suit property. It is the case of the defendants that the possession of the suit property was not handed over to the plaintiff. As such, the first defendant has the right in the suit property in respect of 1/5th share, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief claimed and sought for dismissal of the suit.
Evidence and Documents:
6. During Trial, on the side of the plaintiff PW.1 to PW.3 were examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A8 were marked. On the side of the defendants, DW.1 and DW.2 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 were marked.
Findings of the Trial Court:
7. After analysing the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court by judgment a
