Case Note & Summary
The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction claiming that the suit properties were ancestral properties of Arunachala Nadar, who died several years ago, and that the plaintiff, along with the defendants, derived the properties as joint family properties. The plaintiff sought a 1/4 share and a declaration that a settlement deed dated 14.10.2008 executed by the first defendant in favour of the third defendant was null and void. The defendants contended that the properties originally belonged to Arunachalam Nadar, who died in 1958, and that after his death, the first defendant and two other legal heirs orally partitioned the properties, and the suit properties fell to the share of the first defendant, who thus became the absolute owner. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove that the properties were ancestral. The first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. The plaintiff then filed the second appeal under Section 100 CPC. The High Court framed a substantial question of law: whether the suit properties are ancestral properties in which the plaintiff has a share by birth. The court noted that the plaintiff did not produce any document to show that the properties were ancestral or that they were inherited from a paternal ancestor. The court held that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff, and he failed to discharge it. The concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were not perverse. The court also held that the settlement deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the third defendant was valid as the properties were self-acquired. The second appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the lower courts were confirmed.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Ancestral Property - Burden of Proof - Plaintiff must prove that property is ancestral and that he has a share by birth - In the absence of evidence showing that the property was inherited from a paternal ancestor, the property is presumed to be self-acquired - Held that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof (Paras 10-14). B) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Under Section 100 CPC, the High Court can interfere only if there is a substantial question of law - Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts cannot be re-appreciated unless perverse - Held that no substantial question of law arises (Paras 8-9). C) Hindu Law - Settlement Deed - Validity - A father can settle his self-acquired property in favour of any son - The settlement deed dated 14.10.2008 executed by the first defendant in favour of the third defendant is valid as the properties were not proved to be ancestral - Held that the settlement deed is not null and void (Paras 15-17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit properties are ancestral properties in which the plaintiff has a share by birth, and whether the settlement deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the third defendant is null and void.
Final Decision
Second appeal dismissed. Judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Tiruchendur in A.S.No.130 of 2017 dated 23.01.2019 confirming the judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court, Sathankulam in O.S.No.90 of 2008 dated 12.02.2013 are confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on plaintiff to prove ancestral nature
- Presumption of joint family property rebuttable
- Settlement deed by father not invalid if properties are self-acquired
- Partition suit requires proof of joint family status
