9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Paternity of the Plaintiff 2. Exclusion from Joint Family Properties 3. Limitation under Article 127 of the Limitation Act Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Paternity of the Plaintiff: The plaintiff claimed to be the son of the 2nd defendant and sought partition and separate possession of joint family properties. The defendants contested this, asserting that the plaintiff was not the son of the 2nd defendant, alleging that the plaintiff's mother had illicit relations and was divorced. The trial court upheld the defendants' claim, but the appellate court reversed this finding, accepting the plaintiff's paternity. The appellate court found discrepancies in the defendants' evidence and concluded that the plaintiff was indeed the son of the 2nd defendant. The High Court affirmed this finding, noting that the trial court's reliance on certain evidence was misplaced and that the appellate court's conclusion was supported by the material evidence. 2. Exclusion from Joint Family Properties: The plaintiff argued that he was not excluded from joint family properties as required under Article 127 of the Limitation Act. The defendants relied on the plaintiff's admission in the plaint that he and his mother were driven out of the house, suggesting exclusion. However, the High Court found that this did not constitute a clear admission of exclusion. The court emphasized that exclusion under Article 127 requires a conscious and deliberate act amounting to denial of the right, which must be known to the excluded member. The court noted that the defendants had not provided specific evidence of exclusion and that the plaintiff's exclusion was not established to his knowledge more than 12 years before the suit. 3. Limitation under Article 127 of the Limitation Act: The trial court and the appellate court held that the plaintiff's claim was barred by limitation under Article 127, as he was excluded from possession more than 12 years before the suit. The High Court disagreed, stating that the limitation period begins when the exclusion is known to the plaintiff. The court cited precedents to support that mere lapse of time does not bar partition unless the exclusion is brought to the plaintiff's knowledge. The court found no evidence that the plaintiff was aware of his exclusion more than 12 years before the suit. Additionally, the court noted that the plaintiff's demand for partition and subsequent notice constituted the cause of action, making the suit timely. Conclusion: The High Court allowed the second appeal, holding that the plaintiff was entitled to a 1/12th share in the joint family properties. The court directed the trial court to ascertain the plaintiff's share of income from the lands from the date of the plaint in the final decree proceedings. The parties were ordered to bear their respective costs throughout the litigation. The appeal was allowed, and the plaintiff was granted partition and separate possession of his share.
|
