The High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by defendants challenging the partition decree. The court held no substantial question of law arose regarding the rejection of pleas of oral relinquishment and adverse possession, upholding the trial court's finding in favor of the plaintiffs.
Second appeal dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 31.01.2017
PRONOUNCED ON : 02.02.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
S. A.No.720 of 2011
and
M.P.No.1 of 2011
Vs.
Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2010 made in A.S.No.131 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Erode, confirming the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2006 made in O.S.No.694 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Erode.
For Appellants : Mr.M.Guruprasad For Respondents : Mr.S.Saravanan
2
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this second appeal is made by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2010 made in A.S.No.131 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Erode, confirming the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2006 made in O.S.No.694 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Erode.
3
properties as the heirs of the deceased Ramasamy gounder and inasmuch as their request for amicable partition had been repudiated by the defendants, they have been necessitated to lay the suit for partition and the plaintiffs claimed totally 8/15th share in the suit properties.
4
negatived by the Courts below as the evidence, with reference to the same on the side of the defendants, is not convincing trustworthy and acceptable. As regards the establishment of the plea of adverse possession, the defendants have relied upon Exs.B1 to 9. However, as rightly held by the courts below, the above said documents would not be adequate and sufficient and also found to be not convincing to uphold the plea of ouster and adverse possession set out by the defendants to resist the claim of the plaintiffs in claiming partition in respect of the suit properties.
In the light of the above discussions, no substantial question of law is found to be involved in this second appeal. The second appeal
5
fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
02.02.2017
Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No sms
To
T.RAVINDRAN,J.
sms
6
Pre-delivery Judgment in S. A.No.720 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011
02.02.2017
7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether substantial question of law arises to interfere with the below courts' rejection of oral relinquishment and adverse possession pleas.
Whether plaintiffs are entitled to claim due shares in suit properties by way of partition.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Subramani, Chellammal, Ganesan
Saraswathi Lakshmi (died), M.Rajesari, M.Shanthi, Sivakolundu
T.RAVINDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
