Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, R.VIJAYAKUMAR, JJ
11.Ponselvam 2.Ponvandu 33.Janatha – Appellant
Versus
K.Kalaiselvi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff claims ancestral property for partition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defendants argue for non-joinder of co-owners. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments on will and partial partition raised. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court's examination of evidence and proceedings detailed. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. court upholds trial ruling; dismisses appeal. (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT :
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
1. The defendants in O.S.No.31 of 2016 on the file of the Additional District Court, Paramakudi have preferred the present first appeal challenging the Preliminary decree for partition.
(A).Factual Matrix:
2.The plaintiff has contended that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of Pandi Nadar and he had died interstate leaving behind his two sons namely Ponselvam and Saravanan and two daughters namely Ponvandu and Janatha. The plaintiff is the wife of the deceased Saravanan. According to the plaintiff, her husband had passed away on 20.05.2015 and the defendants are attempting to alienate the property treating it as their exclusive property. Hence the suit for partition.
3. The defendants had filed a written statement admitting the genealogy and ancestral character 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
