Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, R.VIJAYAKUMAR, JJ
Selvaraj – Appellant
Versus
Mariammal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts establishing co-ownership and the basis for partition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 6 , 9) |
| 2. plaintiffs' claim for partition arises from inheritance. (Para 7) |
| 3. defendants claim ouster, but lack supporting evidence. (Para 10) |
| 4. trial court's findings on evidence supported the plaintiffs' claim. (Para 12 , 16) |
| 5. legal principles confirming the failure to prove ouster. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 6. appellate review confirms necessity for evidence in ouster claims. (Para 26) |
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
The defendants in O.S.No.82 of 2013 on the file of the IV Additional District Court, Tirunelveli, are the appellants herein.
2. O.S.No.82 of 2013 had been instituted by the respondents/plaintiffs, who are two sisters, seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties, each claiming 1/4 share therein. The defendants/appellants are the brothers of the plaintiffs/respondents.
3. By judgment dated 29.11.2016, the suit was decreed with respect to Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties, and a preliminary decree was passed, declaring that each of the two plaintiffs are entitled to 1/4 share in the said items.
4. Subsequently, the respondents/plaintiffs filed I.A.No.123 of
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
