Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Past Licenses and Undertaking Prove Knowledge of Copyright License Need, Warrant Ad-Interim Injunction: Bombay HC
13 Mar 2026
Non-Compliance on Counter Affidavits Draws Exemplary Costs Warning: Supreme Court in Gauri Maulekhi PIL
13 Mar 2026
SLPs Challenging PoP Idol Immersion Orders Disposed as Infructuous; Liberty to Assist Bombay HC: Supreme Court
13 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice P. DHANABAL
P. RAMAKRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
RAMACHANDRAN (DECEASED) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
P. Dhanabal, J.
The second appeal has been preferred as against the decree and judgment dated 27.11.2009 passed by the II Additional Subordinate Court, Salem in A.S.No.136 of 2008, wherein the respondents herein have preferred the appeal as against the decree and judgment dated 18.02.2008 passed in O.S.No.846 of 2003, on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Namakkal. The said appeal was allowed by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved over the same, the present second appeal has been preferred.
2. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 are sons of late Perumal. During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant died and his legal heirs defendants 3 to 6 were impleaded as parties to the suit. Originally the suit properties are ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. The father of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 have purchased the suit properties through a registered sale deed
Co-owners are presumed to be in constructive possession of property unless ouster is proven, impacting court fee valuation in partition suits.
The court upheld the entitlement of the plaintiff's share in ancestral properties and directed the determination of her legal heirs and the validity of her Will before distribution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that women have equal rights in ancestral properties, irrespective of sreedhana, and the burden of proof lies on the party claiming discharge of a ....
The court affirmed that items 1 and 2 of suit properties are ancestral, and items 3 to 11 are self-acquired, highlighting the plaintiffs' burden to prove family property claims.
In property disputes, all sharers must be joined as necessary parties to ensure valid adjudication of rights, as established in the judgment.
The main legal point established is that the plaintiff's possession was proved through various documents, and the first defendant had no standing to dispute the partition.
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
Listen Article