Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Sounthar, J
Senthil Kumar (Died) represented by his legal heirs – Appellant
Versus
Koteeswaran (Died) Rep. by his Legal Heirs – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of suit proceedings and pleadings on partition. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. oral partition plea unproved by evidence. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. non-party co-owner need not cancel sale deed. (Para 7 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. appeal dismissed; partition decree confirmed. (Para 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT
The legal heirs of the first defendant and the 2nd defendant are the appellants herein.
2. The predecessor in interest of the respondent/deceased sole plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.486 of 2008 seeking partition of his half share. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. The first appeal filed by the plaintiff in A.S.No.45 of 2018 was allowed by the first appellate court. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have come before this court. Both the sole plaintiff and the first defendant died pending first appeal and hence, their Legal Representatives were brought on record.
3. According to the plaintiff, 72 cents of lands in S.No.143/2 of Arumandhi Village belonged to joint family consisting of plaintiff’s father Radhakrishnan, plaintiff and his brother Venkatachalam, the 2nd defendant in the suit. The plaintiff’s father Radhakrishnan sold 22 cents 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
