Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.Dhanabal, J
Govindasamy – Appellant
Versus
Vijayalakshmi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff claims partition of ancestral/joint family property. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defendants claim property is self-acquired, not ancestral. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. lower court proceedings, evidence, and appellate judgment summary. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. parties' contentions on ancestral nucleus versus separate property. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 5. analysis of property nature and burden of proof requirements. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. legal precedent on burden of proof for joint property. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. final ruling on property classification and partition rights. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
JUDGMENT
1.This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree on the file of the learned I Additional Coimbatore in AS No.118 of 2009 .
2. The appellant are defendants 1 and 6 and the first respondent herein has filed a suit in O.S.No. 51 of 2008 for the relief of partition and for mesne profits. The trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the plaintiff has preferred an appeal in A.S.No.118 of 2009. The said appeal was partly decreed. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the defendants
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
