Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.56 seconds)
Documents citing Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma & Ors on 15 May, 2018

Smt Mahanthamma vs Sri Chandrappa on 19 January, 2024

9. In response, learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the entitlement of the plaintiff to the extent of 1/3rd share in the remaining suit schedule properties. He further submits on instruction that the respondents have no objection in modifying the decree in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Vineetha Sharma Vs Rakesh Sharma and Others reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1.
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - M G Kamal - 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

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

Sri Venkatesh vs Smt Sannathayamma on 10 January, 2024

11. In response, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent Nos.1 and 2 - plaintiffs submitted that the appellant/defendant No.4 was completely aware of the existing right of plaintiffs even when he entered into the Joint Development Agreement and has shown no regards to ensure that rights of the plaintiffs were taken care of in the matter. He also brings to the notice of the Court that a Sale Deed that has been executed by defendant No.4 acting as the Power of Attorney of defendant Nos.1 to 3 on 26.02.2011 conveying the properties in favour of defendant Nos.5 and 6 i.e., during the pendency of the suit. Thus, he submits all the contentions/grounds being urged by the appellants are contrary to the facts and law applicable to the case. He submits that no substantial question of law would arise for consideration, more particularly, 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 and hence, seeks dismissal of the appeal.
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - M G Kamal - Full Document

Sri. Ramachandrappa vs Smt. Shylamma on 8 February, 2022

9. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, issue with regard to the plaintiff being daughter entitled for share in the joint family property is no longer res integra in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma supra. Further, as noted by the first appellate court at Para 15 of its judgment referring to the 7 contention of the appellant/first defendant in his written statement that the suit schedule properties are the separate properties of Nanjappa which he acquired through partition, leaves no doubt that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties. The plaintiff and the defendants being children of said Nanjappa would therefore, be entitled for equal share in the suit schedule property.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - M G Kamal - Full Document

Smt Renukadevi vs Smt Jayamma on 20 April, 2022

8. It is not in dispute that the suit schedule properties have been alienated prior to the cut off dates provided under the Proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act, 1956. The Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma (Supra) has held that the daughter is treated as a coparcener in the same manner as a son by birth with the same rights in coparcenary property and liabilities. However, the proviso of sub-section (1) contains a non obstante clause providing that nothing contained in the sub-section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of the property which had taken place before 20.12.2004....... The rights can be claimed by the daughters 10 born earlier with effect from 09.09.2005 with Savings as provided in Section 6(1) as to the disposition or alienation, partition or testamentary disposition which had taken place before 20th day of December, 2004.
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next