Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.12 seconds)
Documents citing Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma & Ors on 15 May, 2018

T.S.Rajan vs C.R.Jothi (Died) on 27 March, 2023

10. In view of the above, I am inclined to interfere with the fair and decreetal order, dated 07.11.2022, passed by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, in I.A.No.296 of 2021 in I.A.No.708 of 2005 in O.S.No.687 of 2000. Accordingly, the fair and decreetal order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the trial Court to pass a fresh order in I.A.No.296 of 2021 in I.A.No.708 of 2005 in O.S.No.687 of 2000. within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by applying the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma's case referred to supra with the facts of the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - C Saravanan - Full Document

Shri Yallappagouda S/O Basanagouda ... vs Smt. Annaupurnevva Alias Tippavva W/O ... on 3 February, 2023

In the said FDP.No.5/2020 respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed application under Order-VI Rule-17 of CPC seeking amendment of the preliminary decree on the ground in view of change of law as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma and Others, reported in 2020 (9) SCC 1 following the judgment in the case of Gonduri Koteshwaramma vs. Chakiri Yanadi, reported in 2011 (9) SCC 788 the preliminary decree is to be amended by enlarging and modifying the preliminary decree in terms of the said judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The said application having been opposed by the petitioners herein, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing I.A.No.III, aggrieved by which, petitioners are before this Court by way of present petition.
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S R Kumar - Full Document

Ranveer Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 August, 2020

Furthermore, the facts of the case are not in dispute. The respondent No.5 is the sibling of the petitioners and is having equal share in the property in dispute as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma & Others by judgment dated 11th August, 2020 passed in Civil Appeal No.... Diary No 32601 of THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 MP 697/2020 Ranveer Singh and Ors. Vs. State of MP & Ors.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Smt. Shanthamma @ Ammayamma vs Sri. Nanjunda Reddy on 23 September, 2020

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of VINEETA SHARMA VS. RAKESH SHARMA AND OTHERS - 2020(2) Kar.L.R.161 (SC), the petitioner who is a daughter WP.15096/2015 5 would have to be considered as a coparcener by birth and she would have to be granted the same share as that of a son. He also contended that since the final decree was yet to be drawn up, it was permissible in law to enlarge the share in accordance with the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - N S Gowda - Full Document

Malleeswari vs Aruna .... 1St on 23 September, 2022

6. Turning to the resistance of Suguna for admitting the revision petitioner Malleswari's to her claim of share in the suit properties, she had purchased the whole of Items 4,5,6 and 7, after 20-12-2004, as against the right ½ share of Munusamy Naidu in terms of the preliminary decree dated 25.02.2003. She therefore, necessarily took a chance with the decree even when she purchased these items of properties. Secondly, her contention that the sale agreements that she had entered into with Munusamy Naidu were dated prior to the cut off date is also immaterial since the sale agreements do not create any interest over the land, but creates only contractual obligation on Munusamy Naidu. In effect Suguna could hold on to only ½ share that Munusamy Naidu had in terms of the preliminary decree. Now, she pleads certain facts to dispute that the suit properties are not coparcenery properties for Malleswari to stake a claim in terms of the law declared in Vineeta Sharma case cannot be countenanced by this Court, for it is not available for a pendente lite transferee to canvass. She has to merely settle for what her vendor obtains under the decree.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - N Seshasayee - Full Document

Mrs Girijamma vs Shivamma Dead By Lrs on 29 September, 2022

Therefore, the daughters were entitled to claim for an equal share as coparceners and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prema vs. Nanje Gowda and others [(2011) 6 SCC 462] which is affirmed in Vineeta 7 Sharma, supra, the Final Decree Court was justified in altering the shares and declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to an undivided 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. There is no error warranting interference by this Court.
Karnataka High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Nagamma vs Smt. M. Pushpa on 15 November, 2022

This petition is by the first respondent in FDP.No.40/2017 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru (for short, 'the civil Court'). The petitioner has impugned the civil Court's order dated 30.03.2022, and the civil Court by this order has rejected the petitioner's application (I.A.No.V) filed under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC'). The petitioner in filing this application is seeking for enlargement of 1/9th share as decreed in her favour in the suit schedule property to 1/3rd share based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors1.
Karnataka High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - B M Prasad - Full Document
1   2 Next