Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

APPEARANCE

May, I please your Lordship that, I XYZ the public prosecutor appears on behalf of the Appellant in the present case and seeks your permission to argue the case

PROPOSITION
Ganga Ram was the Karta of MItakshra joint Hindu family. He died intestate leaving behind three sons and one married daughter named Sohan Lal, Mohan Lal, Rajesh(Minor) and Rumila. Partition was constituted as per mutual arrangement of the heirs. Elder son Sohan Lal acquired higher share in t he property than remaining heirs as he has made arrangement of oblation of their parents. The minor Rajesh and his property was under the guardianship / supervision of Sohan Lal. Sohan Lal sold a portion of minorss property contended to make necessary arr angement of minors education and marriage. Gita Ram a stranger made an acknowledgement to Sohan Lal that he is an illegitimate son of the deceased, so he is entitled to get equal share in the property. But Sohan Lal refused to it. Three years and two m onth later, after attaining the age of majority, Rajesh,Gita Ram & Rumila instituted a suit in the court of Law for reopening of the partition. Rajesh alleged that when the partition was affected he was minor. Gita Ram claimed that his share in the proper ty in the capacity of illegitimate son and Rumila has contended that useless property was given to her. Plead for & against.

ISSUES
1. Whether a partition on the basis of mutual arrangement or family arrangement can be reopened. 2. Whether an Illegitimate son is entitled to get a share in the property of his deceased father. 3. Whether a minor can re-open a partition after attaining the age of majority. 4. Whether a married woman can re-open a partition.

Issue - 1 Whether a partition on the basis of mutual arrangement or family arrangement can be reopened.

It is humbly submitted that In Shri Satya Pal Aggarwal vs. Shri Rajinder Kumar and Ors., It was held that family settlement between the parties should be accepted provided, 1. It is with the consent of the parties. 2. The family settlement must be bonafide. 3. Family settlement must be voluntary and should not be induced by fraud, coercion or undue influence.

It is most humbly submitted that In Kumara swami Mudaliar and Ors. Vs Rajamanikkam and Ors. It was held that a partition may be reopened, if any coparcener has obtained an unfair advantage in the property by fraud upon other coparceners.

In the instant case the Respondent has secured undue advantage in the property by assigning himself a large share of the property, so it can be reopened.

Issue - 2 Whether an Illegitimate son is entitled to get a share in the property of his deceased father. It is submitted that In Daddo Atmaram Patil And Ors. Vs Raghunath Atmaram Patil(Savant), It was held that, 1. The illegitimate son does not acquire by birth any interest in his fathers estate and he cannot therefore demand partition against his father during the latters lifetime. 2. On his fathers death, the illegitimate son succeeds as a coparcener to the separate estate of the father along with the legitimate son(s) with a right of survivorship and is entitled to enforce partition against legitimate son(s). It is humble submitted that In Sarojamma And Ors. vs Neelamma And Ors, it was held that section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act. 1956,when it speak of conferring status of legitimacy to a child born out of a marriage whether void or voidable in law, guarantees right in the properties of the parents. The object of Section 16 of the Act. is intended to protect the interest of such children both in regard to their status and right to succeed to the estate of their parents. Such beneficial provision should be given liberal and wider meaning. It is submitted that In Jinia Keotin vs Kumar Sitaram, it was held that the legitimate status of the children which depended very much upon the marriage between their parents valid or void, thus turned on the act of their parents over which the child had no hold or control. A laudable and

noble Act of the legislature indeed in enacting S.16 to put end to a great social evil.

In the instant case the petitioner is entitled to get a share in the property of his deceased father.

Issue 3 Whether a minor can re-open a partition after attaining the age of majority. It is most humbly submitted that In Radhakrishnan Alias Ratheesan vs Damodaran Nair, It was held that 1. It is the duty of the court to protect and safeguard the interests of the minor and onus of proof that the partition was just and fair is on the party supporting the partition. 2. The partition can be reopened whatever be the length of time and that it is the duty of the persons who are supporting the partition to prove that it is fair. It is most humbly submitted that In Meenambal And Ors. vs Chockalinga And Ors. It was held if the partition is to be set aside on the basis of limitation, the limitation has to start only from the date of the knowledge of the unfairness of the partition.

In the instant case minor can reopened the partition to get equal share in the property of his deceased father.

Issue 4

Whether a married woman can re-open a partition. It is submitted that In Savita Samvedi vs Union of India, the court held as under: A common saying is worth pressing into service. A son is a son until he gets a wife. A daughter is daughter throughout her life. The eligibility of a married daughter must be placed on a par with an unmarried daughter. Otherwise, it would be unfair, gender-biased and unreasonable and liable to be struck down under Article 14 of the Constitution. It suffers from twin vices of gender discrimination inter se among the women on account of marriage and between a married daughter and a married son. It is humbly submitted that In Commissioner of Income Tax vs Indian Bank Limited, it was held as under: A daughter a. By birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son. b. Have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son. c. The daughter is allotted the same share as is allotted to a son.

In the instant case as petitioner was given worthless property, so she may be allowed to reopen the partitions to readjust the share got in the property.

Вам также может понравиться