Smt. Saraswathi, vs C. Ramulu, on 23 September, 2024
41. The High Court of Madras in Malla Naicker @ Singari & others v.
Jeeva (Minor) and others (cited supra), held that:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.65 seconds)Documents citing
Mr.Malla Naicker @ Singari vs Miss. Jeeva (Minor) on 8 August, 2011
Chellammal (Died) vs Dhanalakshmi (Died)
(A) Mr.Malla Naicker @ Singari Vs. Miss. Jeeva (Minor)
(Judgment dated 08.08.2011 rendered in S.A. No. 212 of 2011)
wherein this Court held at paragraph No. 19 as follows:
Rukmani vs Rengammal
(ii) 2012 (1) CTC 128 : Mr.Malla Naicker @ Singari vs
Miss.Jeeva (Minor), as follows:-
S.Ramayya (Deceased) vs N.Lakshmayya (Deceased)
5.2 In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel relied upon a
judgment of this Court in Malla Naicker @ Singari & Ors. Vs.
Jeeva(minor) & Ors.1, more specifically relying on Paragraph Nos.17 to
22, to contend that the properties purchased by the kartha will be
presumed to be ancestral properties unless proved otherwise by the kartha.
S.Ramayya (Deceased) vs N.Lakshmayya (Deceased)
5.2 In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel relied upon a
judgment of this Court in Malla Naicker @ Singari & Ors. Vs.
Jeeva(minor) & Ors.1, more specifically relying on Paragraph Nos.17 to
22, to contend that the properties purchased by the kartha will be
presumed to be ancestral properties unless proved otherwise by the kartha.
Rathinavelu vs Krishnammal
In Malla Naicker @ Singari and Others Vs. Jeeva
(minor) and others (cited supra), the joint family possessed
ancestral properties and the first appellant was the Karta of the joint
family and under the said circumstances, a Single Judge of this court
has held that the properties purchased in the name of the first
appellant and in his wife, legal presumption is that the ancestral
properties must have provided the nucleus and the burden is on the
Karta to prove that the properties were not purchased from and out of
the income derived from the joint family and it was purchased from
his own income. In this case, as already pointed out that the second
http://www.judis.nic.in
25
defendant is not a Karta and hence the aforesaid decision also will not
apply to the facts of the case.
S.Palani @ Sundar vs Sundararaju
26. Coming to the judgements cited by the learned counsel for the
appellant/plaintiff, in the case of Malla Naicker @ Singari v. Jeeva (minor)
[2012 (1) CTC 128], a learned single Judge of this Court has held that when the
kartha of the family pleads that the suit properties were separate properties and
not joint family properties, the onus lies on the kartha to prove that the properties
are self-acquired properties and he should also prove that there is no existence of
ancestral nucleus in the joint family properties.
N.Velusamy vs C.Meenakshi
4) Malla Naicker @ Singari and others Vs. Jeeva (minor) and
others reported in 2012 (1) CTC 128
S.Palani @ Sundar vs Sundararaju
26. Coming to the judgements cited by the learned counsel for the
appellant/plaintiff, in the case of Malla Naicker @ Singari v. Jeeva (minor)
[2012 (1) CTC 128], a learned single Judge of this Court has held that when the
kartha of the family pleads that the suit properties were separate properties and
not joint family properties, the onus lies on the kartha to prove that the properties
are self-acquired properties and he should also prove that there is no existence of
ancestral nucleus in the joint family properties.
Amirtham vs Muthusamy on 13 September, 2022
" 17. Therefore, having regard to the presumption
as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court as well as our High Court as referred to above,
and as stated in Mulla's Hindu Law that when a
Kartha claims certain properties as a separate
properties and the joint family admittedly possessed of
some nucleus, the burden is on the Kartha to prove
that the properties are his separate properties and not
1 2012 (1) CTC 128
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8/15
A.S.No.508 of 2015
purchased out of the joint family properties' income.
On the other hand, if the co-parcener claims certain
properties as his separate properties, then the burden
is cast on the other co-parcener, who claims that the
property is a joint family property to prove that
property purchased in the name of one of the co-
parceners was purchased out of the joint family
properties' income and it was not a separate property.