Execution of settlement deed is not denied - Attesting witness need not to be examined - Properties purchased should also be considered as joint family properties acquired in name of karta.

Citation

CDJ 2017 MHC 899

Muthusamy vs S.Kaliammal and others

Head Note

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 96 – Evidence Act – Section 68 – Partition and separate possession – Plaintiff claim that all four items of properties belonged to said joint family and sought partition and separate possession of her 1/3rd share in suit properties – Trial Judge held that Plaintiff was entitled to share in property which is subject matter of settlement –

Court held – first Defendant has failed to discharge said onus– Even according to his own evidence, he was in management of properties – Properties purchased should also be considered as joint family properties acquired in name of first Defendant, who was in fact in management of family properties at relevant point of time – Plaintiff would be entitled to share in those properties also – Trial Judge has granted 1/3rd share to Plaintiff in the said properties – Plaintiff would be entitled to 1/6th share in said properties also and to that effect, judgment and decree of Trial Court needs to be modified – judgment and decree of Trial Court with reference to Items 1 to 3 are confirmed – Appeal partly allowed.

(Paras 24,25)

Cases Referred:
Achuthan Nair Vs. ChinnammuAmma and othersreported in AIR 1966 SC 411
Nagayasami Naidu and others Vs. Kochadai Naidu and othersreported in AIR 1969 Madras 329
ThambiranNaicker Vs. DuraiswamyNaicker[1996(2) MLJ 207],
C.K.Krishnan Vs. C.K.Shanmugam and others [1975 (2) MLJ 73],
KandaswamiChettiar and others vs. GopalChettiar and others [1995(2) MLJ 184]
ThambiranNaicker Vs. DuraiswamyNaicker[1996(2) MLJ 207],
SonnappaIyer v. K.R. Ramuthaiammal and others (1994)1 M.L.J. 44

Comparative Citations:
2017 (2) LW 460, 2017 (3) MLJ 100, 2017 (3) CTC 79, 2017 (2) MWN(Civil) 71,