Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 66615
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. Arul Murugan, J
Chandrasekarapandian – Appellant
Versus
Jeyaraja – Respondent
Second Appeal|S.A.(MD)No.42 of 2019|A.S.No.55 of 2015|O.S.No.510 of 2007
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.K.Hemakarthikeyan
For the Respondents: Mr.S.Lakshmanan, Mr.P.Manikandan
In a partition suit, the claimant must provide credible evidence opposing established oral partition claims, with the burden of proof resting on them.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Partition Suit - The plaintiff challenged dismissal of suit claiming ancestral properties against defendants citing oral partition in family and relevant documentary evidence - Court confirmed dismissal citing lack of proof for claims made by the plaintiff. (Paras 1, 6, 18)
(B) Family Law - Ancestral Property - The court found that defendants had established previous partition through evidence, requiring burden of proof on them - No substantial evidence presented by plaintiff to counter defendants' claims. (Paras 4, 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff's claim to an ancestral partition was challenged by the defendants citing oral partition and supporting documentation. The plaintiff's inability to produce contrary evidence led to dismissal.
Findings of Court:
The courts found no merit in the plaintiff's claims and highlighted the execution of a sale deed by the plaintiff that indicated recognition of previous partition - Consequently, both trial and appellate judgments were upheld.
Issues: Determination of rightful ownership and effectiveness of prior oral partition against claims of inheritance by the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the burden of proof lay on the party claiming preservation of ancestral rights following an established partition backed by documentary evidence.
Result: The appeal was dismissed as no substantial error was found in the courts below.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff claims ancestral properties and argues against alienation. (Para 2 , 4 , 8) |
| 2. court affirms established partition and evidence against claim. (Para 6 , 7 , 12 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. defendants assert prior oral partition and validity of documents. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. burden of proof lies on claimant in partition cases. (Para 18) |
JUDGMENT
The unsuccessful plaintiff is before this Court on appeal.
2. The second appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2018 in A.S.No.55 of 2015 on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Madurai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2015 in O.S.No.510 of 2007 on the file of the learned Sub Court, Usilampatti, Usilampatti Camp.
3.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their litigative status before the trial Court.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties belonging to the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 8. The first defendant is the mother, the defendants 2 to 4 and 6 are brothers and the defendants 3, 5,7 and 8 are the sisters of the plaintiff. The father of the plaintiff namely, Vellaisamypandian was a erstwhile jamin of Uthapanayakaur Village. After the death of his father, the plaintiff along with the defendants 1 to 8 were enjoying the suit properties commonly without any partition. It is the further case of the plaintiff that when the defendants 1 to 8 attempted to alienate some portion of the suit properties, the plaintiff had questioned the same. Further, the parties had also executed a mortgage deed in respect of some of the items of the suit properties for their family expenses. Since attempts are made to alienate the property and defeat the rights of the plaintiff, he has filed the suit seeking partition.
5.The defendants resisted the suit by filing a written statement.
According to the defendants, their father Vellaisamypandian died in the year 1990 and pursuant to which, the joint family properties were partitioned in the year 1991 through family arrangement effected orally among the plaintiff and his brothers. In the oral partition, the suit properties were allotted to the defendants 2 to 4 and 6, whereas the other property was allotted to the share of the plaintiff. Based on the partition effected and enjoyment, the mutation has been made and patta has been issued in favour of the parties. The plaintiff has received properties through the oral partition and sold the same to the third parties. The four sisters/the defendants 3, 5, 7 and 8 had executed a released deed releasing their rights in the joint family properties to the brothers. Since the sisters had released their shares and they had an oral partition in the year 1991, the existence of any joint family properties as claimed by the plaintiff is disputed and thereby, they had sought for dismissal of the suit.
6.During trial, on the side of the plaintiff, he examined himself as P.W.1 and two more witnesses had been examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and marked Ex.A1 to A23. On the side of the defendants, the sixth defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.21.
7.The trial court, after analyzing the evidence, dismissed the suit by holding that there are certain properties, which has been purchased by the first defendant/mother and the plaintiff cannot make a claim in respect of those properties. Further, in the other suit properties, which are all ancestral properties, the defendants had claimed that there was a oral partition in the year 1991 and the partition stood proved in view of the documents marked under Ex.B2, which is the sale deed executed by the plaintiff himself, and as per the recitals, he got the ancestral property through the partition deed and thereby, they had rejected the claim of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit.
8. The lower appellate court, on re-appraising the evidence, concurred with the finding of the trial court that as per Ex.B2, the plaintiff had sold t
