If execution of settlement deed is not denied _ attesting witness need not be examined - though properties i the name of 1st defendent it is joint family properties.

Citation

CDJ 2017 MHC 899

Muthusamy vs 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,