In Brief
M. Arumugam, a woman who was a minor when a family partition deed was executed, filed a suit to claim her share of jointly-held property. The trial court dismissed her claim. The High Court allowed her appeal, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision. The Court held that although the plaintiff was technically a minor at the partition, she had sufficient knowledge of the transactions because her own husband witnessed and signed the partition and settlement deeds. The Court found it unreasonable to believe she was unaware of subsequent transfers by her co-coparceners. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the trial court's judgment was restored.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.