LawforAll

▼
Showing posts with label MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 18, 2017

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT = suit for partition and separate possession = can not be considered as Exclusive possession = However, having regard to their claim that the third defendant is entitled only to 1/4th share, their exclusive possession pleaded by them cannot be taken as a plea of a stranger claiming exclusive right over the entire property but as a joint owner. Though the property is settled in favour of first plaintiff and first defendant under the Will Ex.A3, the possession and enjoyment of the first item of property by the third defendant cannot be taken as one by a person who is entitled to be in possession as an exclusive owner. It was only because Dr.Jayaraman died, suddenly in a road accident, the property is in the enjoyment of third defendant as a person living along with Dr.Jayaraman during his life time and not as a person having independent title ; Since the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, came after the death of Dr.Jayaraman and the succession opens immediately upon the death of Dr.Jayaraman, a specific ground was raised in the appeal memorandum that the third defendant is entitled to 1/4th share in items 5 to 9. = State Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.= As pointed out earlier, items 5 to 9 of the suit properties are allotted to Dr.Jayaraman in a family partition and it has been held by the trial Court that they are his ancestral properties. After the death of Dr.Jayaraman in the year 2002, his two daughters are entitled to equal share as that of Dr.Jayaraman and as a result, the plaintiffs and first defendant are entitled to 5/12 share and the first wife of Dr.Jayaraman, namely, the second plaintiff and third defendant, the illegitimate son of Dr.Jayaraman are entitled to 1/12 share. This is by virtue of the State Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

›
http://judis.nic.in/HCS/list_new2.asp?FileName=129549&Table_Main_Txt=cheordtext BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: ...
Sunday, October 15, 2017

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT - Section 16(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act =the plaintiffs have miserably failed to establish that there has been a valid marriage between Rajammal and Rathinam Pillai and that the plaintiffs have been born out of the said wedlock or even born to him through Rajammal illegally, it is found that the plaintiffs as such are not entitled to claim any share in the suit properties even on the footing that they are the illegitimate children of Rathinam Pillai and accordingly, it is found that the plaintiffs are not entitled to invoke Section 16(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act for claiming the limited reliefs as prayed for in the plaint.= I hold that Rajammal is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased Rathinam Pillai, I further hold that the plaintiffs are not the children of the deceased Rathinam Pillai. Consequently, I hold that the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any partition and separate possession of their respective shares in the suit properties as prayed for. I further hold that Rajeswari is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Rathinam Pillai and the defendants are the children of the deceased Rathinam Pillai. Accordingly, Point Nos.I to IV are answered against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants.

›
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.08.2017 Date of Reserving the Judgment Date of Pronouncing the Judgment 02.08....