Citation network
Lalitha, Vs. V. Arjunan
Cites for this judgment
- Chennai High Court
- Apr 29, 2008
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
In Nagayasami Naidu and Ors. v. Kochadai Naidu and OrsSearch
-
In Nagayasami Naidu and Ors. v. KochadaiSearch
-
[2002]2SCR431Search
-
in the appeal are referred to as they have been arrayed in the original suit in O.S. No. 552 of 2002. 3. Originally, one v. ArumugaSearch
-
of the deceased Arumuga Naicker by an order, dated 23.03.2006.4. The legal representatives of the deceased v. ArumugaSearch
-
the plaintiff had become the absolute owner of the suit schedule mentioned property.5.2. The defendant is the son of late v. VenuSearch
-
Naicker, who pre-deceased late v. RajuSearch
-
Naicker. After the death of v. RajuSearch
-
mentioned property. The defendant had sent a reply notice, on 05.11.2001, stating that he is the adopted son of late v. RajuSearch
-
old, could not have been adopted at the age of 46 years. It is for the defendant to prove that he was adopted by late v. RajuSearch
-
that the adoption is valid in the eye of law. Further, the defendant had claimed that there is a partition deed between v. RajuSearch
-
Late v. RajuSearch
-
by which the defendant had been allotted a major share and a small portion had been allotted to late v. RajuSearch
-
executed in favour of the defendant, the claim of the plaintiff that he is the only surviving brother of the late v. RajuSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
decided issue No. 2 in favour of the plaintiff holding that the defendant had not pleaded that he is the adopted son of v. lateSearch
-
by the plaintiff as Ex.A-2.10. With regard to issues 1 and 3, the trial Court had found that the partition between late v. RajuSearch
-
alleged to have been executed in his favour. Unless, the defendant could prove that he is the adopted son of the late v. RajuSearch
-
not confer any right on him. Since the plaintiff was the only surviving legal heir on the date of the death of the late v. RajuSearch
-
stated, inter alia, that the plaintiff was not the only legal heir to inherit the suit property after the death of late v. RajuSearch
-
claiming any right in the suit property by virtue of adoption, but only on the basis of the documents executed by late v. RajuSearch
-
of title. The plaintiff had not produced any evidence to show that he is the sole surviving legal heir of late v. RajuSearch
-
to the plaintiff, Raju Naicker and Parvathiammal had no issues and as such the plaintiff, being the full brother of late v. RajuSearch
-
Naicker, is entitled to the entire property of late v. RajuSearch
-
of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 13.1. On the other hand, the defendant had claimed that he is the adopted son of late v. RajuSearch
-
he had pleaded and proved that he is the sole surviving brother and that he is entitled to inherit the estate of late v. RajuSearch
-
Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants had submitted that when the plaintiff had claimed that his brother late v. RajuSearch
-
plaintiff as the sole legal heir to inherit his property, the plaintiff ought to have filed the death certificate of late v. RajuSearch
-
made by the plaintiff (P.W.1), during his cross examination, he had admitted that the death certificate relating to late v. RajuSearch
-
In P.S. Ratna Bai v. D.VSearch
-
In Ramasamy Moopanar v. RathnammalSearch
-
In Arunachalam Pillai v. RamuSearch
-
In v. RavichandranSearch
-
In Mahalingam v. KannayyanSearch
-
In Jai Singh v. ShakuntalaSearch
-
In Nagayasami Naidu and Ors. v. KochadaiSearch
-
respondent had submitted that it is for the defendant to prove by sufficient evidence that he is the adopted son of late v. RajuSearch
-
The onus of proof is on the defendant, since he had claimed the right to inherit the property as the adopted son of late v. RajuSearch
-
Naicker, excluding the vested rights of the plaintiff in the suit property as the sole surviving legal heir of late v. RajuSearch
-
the cross examination, the defendant had raised such an issue and had made a claim that he was the adopted son of late v. RajuSearch
-
a prayer for a declaration as the defendant did not dispute the fact that the plaintiff is the legal heir of the deceased v. RajuSearch
-
In spite of the fact that the plaintiff had specifically pleaded that he is the sole surviving legal heir of late v. RajuSearch
-
legal heir of late Raju Naicker. 24. In spite of the claim made by the defendant, that he was the adopted son of the late v. RajuSearch
-
also not produced before the Courts below. When the plaintiff had proved that he is the sole surviving legal heir of late v. RajuSearch
-
the claim of partition. Though the Courts below have held that the plaintiff is the only surviving brother of late v. RajuSearch
-
is entitled to inherit the property, it has not been held that the plaintiff is the sole surviving legal heir of late v. RajuSearch
-
had filed a written statement, denying the claim of the plaintiff that he is the sole surviving legal heir of late v. RajuSearch
-
and the legal heir certificate to show that he is the sole surviving legal heir to inherit the property of late v. RajuSearch
-
In P.S. Ratna Bai v. D.VSearch
-
In Ramasamy Moopanar v. RathnammalSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial