Search Results Page

Search Results

61 - 70 of 1119 (1.73 seconds)
Documents citing Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma & Ors on 15 May, 2018

Saroja vs Thangavel on 6 November, 2023

In view of the settled law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma and Ors, (cited supra), the conclusion reached by the First Appellate Court that the appellants could not be considered as coparceners in respect of the suit property as their father Pachamuthu Padayachi died prior to 2005 Amending Act, is erroneous and liable to be set aside. The date of marriage of daughters also paled into insignificance in view of Hindu Succession Central Amending Act of 2005.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt Kamalamma vs Sri Krishnappa on 19 April, 2024

NC: 2024:KHC:15593 RSA No. 1328 of 2019 alienation or prior partition effected in the manner known to law, the joint family property would remain undivided and the daughters would be entitled for equal share with that of the sons. In the instant case, there has been no proof of prior partition of the property left behind by the Channagiriyappa which fact has been confirmed and concurred by the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court. The Trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit granting 1/8th share to the plaintiff being a daughter. There was no reason or justification whatsoever for the First Appellate Court to have interfered with the same in the absence of any material evidence placed on record contrary to giving effect to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma (supra). In that view of the matter, substantial question of law is answered accordingly.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - M G Kamal - Full Document

Saroja vs Thangavel on 6 November, 2023

In view of the settled law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma and Ors, (cited supra), the conclusion reached by the First Appellate Court that the appellants could not be considered as coparceners in respect of the suit property as their father Pachamuthu Padayachi died prior to 2005 Amending Act, is erroneous and liable to be set aside. The date of marriage of daughters also paled into insignificance in view of Hindu Succession Central Amending Act of 2005.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Basayya S/O Nagayya Marasangayyanavar vs Siddryya S/O Nagayya ... on 13 March, 2023

In light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of VINEETA SHARMA VS. RAKESH SHARMA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2020 KAR 4370, the proposition is no more res- integra. In view of the fact that the daughters are also entitled for equal share in the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the substantial question of law framed is answered in favour of the parties holding that plaintiff and defendants are entitled to equal share in suit schedule properties. Accordingly, this Court pass the following :
Karnataka High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt.Chinnawwa W/O Basappa Melappagol vs Shri.Siddappa S/O Balappa Danannavar on 9 December, 2020

22. The Parliament by Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 elevated the daughters to the status of coparceners and equal to that of the sons. However, the daughters cannot make a claim in the joint family property, if the same were to have been alienated prior to coming into force of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma and Ors. (Supra).
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - G Narendar - Full Document

Gouramma And Ors vs Amaramma And Anr on 16 September, 2025

In view of the said decision in the case of Vineeta Sharma, shares allotted by the first appellate Court require to be modified. Late - Shivanna (husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2), Siddanna (defendant No.2) (husband of defendant No.3 and father of defendant Nos.4 to 8) and Timmavva are entitled to equal shares in the suit properties. Therefore, they are entitled 1/3rd share each in the suit properties. 1/3rd share of late Shivanna in suit schedule properties devolves upon plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 died during pendency of suit. Succession opened on the date of suit. Therefore, 1/3rd share of late Shivanna devolves on plaintiff Nos.1 1 AIR 2020 SC 3717
Karnataka High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - S Amarannavar - Full Document
Previous   3 4 5 6 7   8 9 10 11 12 Next