Search Results Page

Search Results

41 - 50 of 1119 (0.32 seconds)
Documents citing Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma & Ors on 15 May, 2018

Anusaya Kashinath Ushir And Ors vs Bhausaheb Karbhari Khandode And Ors on 22 February, 2023

4. It is admitted position that the shares as determined by the learned Trial Court and as confirmed by the learned First Appellate Court are not in accordance with the law laid down in the case of Vineeta Sharma (supra) and therefore, it was agreed by all the learned counsel who were appearing for contesting parties that the same requires modification.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - M J Jamdar - Full Document

Rangamma W/O Ramshetty @ Ramanna ... vs Hemavathi W/O Mallikarjun Bijanalli ... on 31 October, 2022

4. On examination of the family tree, this Court would find that Rameshetty is survived by one son through first wife Neelamma, who is defendant No.1 and six children to second wife Rangamma. It is 6 also not in dispute that second wife Rangamma is no more. It is also not in dispute that widow of Rameshetty died during pendency of second appeal before this Court. Therefore, in terms of amended provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act and in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and Others, reported in (2020) 9 SCC, the daughters are to be treated as co-parceners and they would independently take share in terms of amended provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, the shares determined by the trial Court by effecting partition notionally is perverse and contrary to Section 6 of the Hindu Marriage Act and also contrary to the dictum laid down by the Apex Court cited supra. If propositus Ramshetty survived by seven children, then sons and daughters at par are entitled to take share i.e., 1/7th each.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gunde Rao S/O Late Vihtal Rao And Anr vs Umesh S/O Late Vithal Rao And Anr on 4 November, 2024

15. Further, the plea of oral partition of the year- 2011 has also been declined by the Trial Court in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and others reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1, wherein it has held that a plea of partition based on oral evidence alone cannot be accepted, in view of the explanation of Section 6(5) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the same is to be rejected outrightly. It is now a settled law that there cannot be any oral partition subsequent to the amendment of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. Therefore, no irregularity or illegality can be found with the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - M G Kamal - Full Document

K. Dharmalingam vs K.Kamalam (Died) on 3 March, 2025

22. In all cases of this nature, the brothers of the married woman takes https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 10:20:25 pm ) 12/16 AS No. 680 of 2024 the defence that the sister was given in marriage with lot of jewels and money so they will not have any claim in the immovable property. Such a plea will no longer hold good in the light of the Vineetha Sharma's case. Therefore, the claim of the Defendant that after the death of the father, the Plaintiff kept quite for all these years and claimed partition only after 45 years from the date of death of father will not hold good or it will not disentitle the Plaintiff from getting a share on par with the Defendant.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S S Kumar - Full Document

Sri Ghulappa Alais Ghaleppa Naikar S/O ... vs Smt. Sabawwa Alias Shobha W/O Babu Naik ... on 28 November, 2024

10. Following the 2005 amendment, daughters are recognized as coparceners by birth in the coparcenary property. The law is well settled in light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma & Others2 that the daughters are the coparceners and entitled for equal share with that of a son. Taking into consideration, the ½ share in Item Nos.1 and 2 and entire Item No.3 the absolute property of Rangappa is been relinquished by Rangappa under relinquishment deed dated 17.06.2024 in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is the absolute owner to the extent of ½ share in Item Nos.1 and 2 and entire Item No.3, in the ½ share of Hanamappa, the plaintiff and defendant are entitled equally, and thus, the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share and the defendant is entitled for 3/4th share in the suit property Item Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiff is not entitled for any share in Item No.3, accordingly the substantial questions of law Nos.1 and 3 are answered and this Court pass the following:
Karnataka High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Minor. Mohitra vs K.Palaniappan on 3 June, 2025

The Plaint averments were considered only regarding the fact that there is no cause of action as the minor Plaintiff cannot seek partition when the father and grandfather were alive, which is 17/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:31:02 pm ) A.S.No.53 of 2024 opposed to the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineetha Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and others ((2020) 9 SCC 1) where it is specifically stated that the Suit for partition by a daughter is maintainable, irrespective of the fact whether the father is alive or dead.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S S Kumar - Full Document
Previous   1 2 3 4 5   6 7 8 9 10 Next