Mortgage-Deed Signatures Didn’t Prove Family Members Funded Property; Madras HC Upholds Plaintiffs’ 10/18 Share

The plaintiffs sought partition and separate possession of a 10/18th share in a 4,157 sq. ft. property purchased under sale deeds dated 7 and 8 January 1981 in the names of the first plaintiff and Parameswari Ammal, mother of the second plaintiff.

The defendants resisted the suit and counterclaimed, asserting that the property was acquired with joint-family funds and contributions from family members, including income from an alleged family business.

The Single Judge granted a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiffs and rejected the defendants’ claim to a 24/27th share.

The defendants appealed against both the decree in the suit and the decree on the counterclaim.

The appeals were heard together.

The appeals were brought under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent read with Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules.

The Court applied the principle that a party asserting that property standing in the names of identified purchasers was acquired from joint-family funds bears the burden of establishing the alleged contribution or a sufficient joint-family nucleus from which the purchase could have been made.

The Court cited no statute governing the substantive property dispute or judicial precedent; its determination rested on the evidence and the recitals in the relevant documents.

The sale deeds named the first plaintiff and Parameswari Ammal as purchasers, and their validity was not challenged.

Although several family members executed the mortgage deeds, Ex.P3 stated that they were included at the mortgagee’s insistence and had no right in the property; Ex.P4 likewise did not establish contribution to the original purchase or create title.

The defendants produced no partnership deed, accounts, registration, or other evidence proving the alleged joint business or sufficient income, while the testimony indicated that family members had worked as coolies.

The Court therefore held that the defendants had not discharged their burden of proving joint-family funding or contribution.

It found no basis to interfere with the Single Judge’s determination that the first plaintiff was entitled to one-half of the property and that the remaining half devolved upon Parameswari Ammal’s legal heirs, resulting in the plaintiffs’ 10/18th share and the defendants’ remaining 8/18th share.

Both appeals were dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree in the suit and counterclaim, with no order as to costs.