Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 16000
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mrs Justice N. MALA
P. Paulsamy – Appellant
Versus
P. Rukmani – Respondent
The burden to establish the existence of joint family property and sufficient income lies with the claimant, affecting the right to partition.
Headnote:
Partition - Family Law - Sections and Provisions on Joint Family Property - Summary: The court discussed joint family property laws, emphasizing the burden of proof on the claimant to establish jointness and income yield from communal assets to claim partition rights. The prevailing legal principles were critical in determining the ownership status of various properties.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought a partition of his 8/28 share in suit properties, claiming they were ancestral. The defendants contended these were self-acquired properties, leading to disputes regarding the nature of the properties and the rights to partition.
Issues: Whether the properties claimed by the plaintiff were joint family properties or self-acquired, and if the plaintiff proved the requisite blending of properties to assert a claim for partition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mere management of properties does not equate to blending of separate properties without sufficient proof of intent and joint family income. The burden of establishing joint ownership rests on the one claiming it.
Final Decision: Second Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant in the Second Appeal. The Second Appeal is filed against concurrent judgment of the Courts below. 2. The parties will be referred to as per their litigative status in the trial court.
3. The facts of the case are as follows:
The plaintiff filed suit for a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of 8/28 share in the suit properties and other consequential reliefs. The plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 6 are the sons and daughters of one late Pattusamy and the 1st defendant. The father of the plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 6 died intestate in 1995. The 7th defendant is a third party purchaser.
4. The plaintiff filed suit for partition claiming initially 1/7th share and later amended the same claiming 8/28 shares in the suit properties. According to the plaintiff, the entire suit properties were either ancestral properties or properties purchased from and out of the income of the ancestral properties. The plaintiff therefore filed the suit for partition of his 8/28 shares in the suit properties.
5. The defendants on the other hand stated that suit items 31 and 32 were self acquired properties of the 2nd defendant and suit items 3, 4 and 33 were self-acquired properties of 3rd defendant. Suit items 12 and 13 were absolute properties of the 1st defendant. According to the defendants, items 8 to 11 of the suit properties were bequeathed by their paternal aunt namely Gnanambal to the plaintiff and the defendants 2 and 3. The defendants stated that they had no objection for partition of the other properties. The defendants 4 to 6 the sisters of the plaintiff sailed with the defendants 1 and 3 and stated that the properties standing in the name of the defendants 1 to 3 were self-acquired properties and that they had no objection for partioning the remaining properties. The 7th defendant who was the purchaser of the item no.32 from the wife of the 2nd defendant filed a separate written statement supporting the case of the defendants.
6. Before the trial court the plaintiff examined three witnesses P.W1 to P.W3 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A24. The defendants examined six witnesses D.W1 to D.W6 and marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B55. The trial court after framing necessary issues held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the joint family properties yielded surplus income which could have formed the basis for the purchases standing in the individual names of the defendants 1 to 3. The trial court afer considering the entire evidence on record held that the properties in items 8 to 11, 12, 13, 31, 32, 33, 3 and 4 were not joint family properties and therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to claim partition in the same. As regards other items of the suit properties, the trial court found that there was no dispute and therefore the plaintiff was entitled to decree for 8/49 share in the same. In effect the trial court allowed the suit for partition of the plaintiffs 8/49 share in suit items 1, 2, 5 to 7 and 14 to 30 and dismissed the suit as regards items 3, 4, 8 to 13, 31, 32 and 33. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No. 28 of 2021 before the II Additional District Court, Chidambaram.
7. The lower appellate court after considering the evidence on record by judgment and decree confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Courts below the plaintiff has filed the above Second Appeal.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant arguing for admission in the Second Appeal submitted that the Courts below erred in declining the relief of partition to the plaintiff with respect to items 3, 4, 12, 13, 31 to 33, overlooking the fact that the said items were blended with the joint family properties. The learned counsel further submitted that there was absolutely no evidence to show that items 12 and 13 standing in the name of the 1st respondent i.e. the mother of the plaintiff was purch
