Father sold entire property - son claiming partition - Non-joinder of sisters of plaintiff was clearly fatal to suit for partition - suit dismissed - Recitals as to Boundaries in documents not being inter partes, inadmissible in evidence .

Citation 

2024 (2) CTC 273 (Mad)

AIR 2024 MADRAS 143

: AIROnline 2024 MAD 264 

P. B. BALAJI, Ј.

S. Ekambaram v. K.Nallathambi.

S.A. No. 664 of 2018, D/- 8-3-2024.

Hindu Law - Suit for partition - Grant

of decree - Plaintiff claimed entitlement

to half share of property on ground that it

was ancestral, while defendant claimed that it was purchased legitimately from father of plaintiff - Plaintiff in his cross-exami-nation admitted that defendant had pur-chased suit property in entirely from his father and was in physical possession of suit property - Plaintiff failed to produce document to establish that property was

ancestral at hands of plaintiff's father

On other hand, defendant filed substan-

tive documents to establish his title and

possession such as sale deed and patta in

his name - Further, plaintiff failed to im-

plead his sisters in suit for partition

Non-joinder of sisters of plaintiff was

clearly fatal to suit for partition - Fur-

thermore, plaintiff incorrectly valued suit

property in terms of S.37(1) - Concur-

rent findings that plaintiff was entitled to

half share in sult property found unrea-

sonable - Grant of decree in favour of

plaintiff was set aside.

Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valu- ation Act (14 of 1955), S.37(1). (Paras 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)

 

Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Sections 11, 13 & 32 Evidentiary value of recitals as to Boundaries Documents not inter partes Suit for Partition Concurrent findings in favour of Plaintiff Second Appeal by Defendant - Whether Suit property is Ancestral Property of father of Plaintiff or his separate property Plaintiff not produced any document to prove Ancestral character of property, except Sale Deed of 1947, in which one Boundary is referred to as his grandfather's property Neither Plaintiff's father nor his grandfather, were parties to said document Executant of said document not examined Sale Dee of 1947, not being inter partes, would not bind Defendant As such, recital regarding Boundary cannot be imposed upon Defendant Recitals as to Boundaries in documents not being inter partes, inadmissible in evidence Defendant purchased property from Plaintiff's father Defendant proved his Title and Possession Suit liable to be dismissed