Burden Lies on Plaintiff to Disprove Defendant’s Lineage in Inheritance Claims: Madras High Court

“In matters of disputed heirship, the burden lies on the party denying the existence of legal heirs to establish the non-existence of such lineage”, held the Madras High Court while dismissing a second appeal concerning a property ownership dispute involving claims of ancestral succession and oral partition.

Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi of the Madras High Court upholding the judgment of the First Appellate Court and rejecting the plaintiff’s claim for exclusive title and possession over the disputed ‘B’ schedule property. The case raised important questions under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, particularly focusing on the burden of proof in inheritance disputes.

“Existence of Patta and Prior Partition Decree Remained Unrebutted — Plaintiff Failed to Establish Exclusive Title”

In a contested property suit involving a claim for declaration and possession over a piece of land, the High Court emphasized that mere denial of another’s heirship does not suffice without corroborative evidence. It affirmed that revenue records, death certificates, and prior partition decrees, if unchallenged, could not be brushed aside, even in the absence of formal birth or marriage certificates. The judgment is significant in reinforcing that the burden lies on the plaintiff who challenges the legal heirship of another.

The dispute centered around 1.46 acres of land in Survey No.35/2 of Chithathoor village, Vellore District. The plaintiff, Vallikannan, claimed exclusive title over the ‘B’ schedule portion of the property on the strength of an oral partition with his brother Krishnamoorthy and a chain of title beginning from a 1968 sale deed. He alleged that the defendant, Raghu, had trespassed into the ‘B’ schedule property in 2012 during his absence and constructed a structure illegally.

The defendant, however, claimed ancestral rights, asserting that his father Natarajan was a son of Sepoy Kali, the original owner, through his third wife, Kullammal. According to the defendant, he and his brother inherited a 1/3rd share of the property, while the plaintiff and his brother were entitled to the remaining 2/3rd share.

While the trial court initially decreed in favour of the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court (A.S. No.1/2018) reversed the decree, rejecting the exclusive title claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff then approached the High Court through a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.

Legal Issue and Court’s Framing of Substantial Question of Law:

The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:

"In the absence of either any oral or documentary evidence in proof of the marriage between Sepoy Kali and Kullammal and a son Natarajan being born out of the wedlock, and nor any proof of revenue documents to clothe title with Natarajan, still is the learned Subordinate Judge right in dismissing the suit?"

The High Court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments and upheld the findings of the appellate court.

On the Burden of Proof Regarding Heirship:

The Court held that the plaintiff, having challenged the legitimacy of Natarajan’s lineage, bore the burden of disproving it. As observed in paras 8-14:

“The onus is always on the party who asserts a negative fact. In this case, it was on the plaintiff to establish that Kullammal was not married to Sepoy Kali and that Natarajan was not born from their lawful wedlock.”

The Court emphasized that while the absence of birth or marriage certificates might appear to weaken the defendant’s case, they were sufficiently supported by other documentary evidence, including:

• Ex.B2 & B3: Death certificates of Kullammal and Natarajan, both naming Sepoy Kali as husband/father;
• Ex.B4 & B5: Pattas issued in the name of Natarajan;
• An ex parte decree in O.S. No.235/2013 granting the defendant and his brother 1/3 share in the suit property, which remained unchallenged by the plaintiff.

On the Validity of Revenue Records and Partition Decree:

The High Court further noted that revenue records and patta entries, though not conclusive on title, can support a presumption of possession and lawful claim when coupled with other documents.

“If the plaintiff truly denied the defendant’s right, he should have taken steps to challenge the name entries in the revenue records or to set aside the partition decree. His failure to do so speaks against the claim of exclusive ownership.”

On Allegations of Trespass and Possession:

The Court also found the allegation of trespass in July 2012 to be unsupported by any concrete evidence. The suit was filed only in 2013, and the plaintiff did not produce any record of efforts to remove the defendant from the revenue entries.

“The plaintiff failed to prove unlawful entry or dispossession. No cause of action based on trespass is established.”

Holding that the findings of the First Appellate Court were neither perverse nor legally flawed, the High Court answered the substantial question of law against the appellant. It concluded that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of disproving the defendant’s inheritance rights, and hence, was not entitled to declaration or possession.

“Factum of marriage and proof of paternity are questions of fact. The appellate court rightly held that the plaintiff did not establish exclusive title. No interference is warranted.”

The Madras High Court’s ruling reinforces a well-established principle in inheritance and title disputes: the burden of proof lies with the party asserting the absence of heirship. In the absence of steps to rebut prior judicial decrees or patta entries, mere denial of another’s legal status is insufficient. The judgment also reiterates that possession and inheritance, when supported by official records and prior decrees, carry legal weight, even in the absence of traditional certificates.

Date of Decision: 31 October 2025