Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 38 (0.87 seconds)
Documents citing Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma & Ors on 15 May, 2018

M. Sathishkumar vs Subbanna Gounder

32. Eventhough the judgment of the three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma's case (cited supra) ruling that the provisions of the substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 are required to be given full effect, notwithstanding that a preliminary decree has been passed, because the daughters are to be given share in coparcenary property equal to that of a son in pending proceedings for final decree or in an appeal and also has a binding force, in the case on hand, the appellants/plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the suit properties, as the registered partition between the respondents 1 to 5 has been effected before the cut-off date 20.12.2004 i.e., on 08.06.2004 i.e., before the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act came into force on 09.09.2005. Hence, this Court holds that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

N.M.Mayuri @ Sujatha vs Smt.Premakumari @ Prema on 6 February, 2021

18. Defendant No.1 claims that she is the owner of the property by virtue of Will executed by T.M.Manavalan on 2.9.1996 and 7.6.2001. So it is burden on the defendant No.1 to prove the Will. If will is proved then plaintiff and other defendants loosen their right over the suit property. If Will is not proved then plaintiff and defendants, being children of late T.M.Manavalan entitled for equal share in the suit schedule property by virtue of Amended Section 6(1) (a) of Hindu Succession act. The latest judgment of 20 O.S.No.25856/2011 Hon'ble Apex Court clear all the points in this regard with respect to the right of the male and female coparcener, which is reported in AIR 2020 SC 3717 in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and Ors. wherein it is held:
Bangalore District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M.Muthusamy vs R.M.Ponnusamy on 5 March, 2021

21. So, even without holding the settlement deed as valid, the 2nd respondent would get a better benefit now in view of the amendment. As per the amended Hindu Succession Act, she should recognized as an equal co-parcener of her family which comprises of herself and her two brothers. Both parties need not be anxious of their reasonable share in the suit properties because of the clear findings rendered in the judgment of the Supreme Court, in Vineetha Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and others [(2020) 9 SCC 1], in connection with the interpretation of Amended Section 6 of the (Hindu Law Amendment, 2005) and the right of daughter.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - R N Manjula - Full Document

M.Muthusamy vs R.M.Ponnusamy on 5 March, 2021

21. So, even without holding the settlement deed as valid, the 2nd respondent would get a better benefit now in view of the amendment. As per the amended Hindu Succession Act, she should recognized as an equal co-parcener of her family which comprises of herself and her two brothers. Both parties need not be anxious of their reasonable share in the suit properties because of the clear findings rendered in the judgment of the Supreme Court, in Vineetha Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and others [(2020) 9 SCC 1], in connection with the interpretation of Amended Section 6 of the (Hindu Law Amendment, 2005) and the right of daughter.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - R N Manjula - Full Document

Mr.Pradeep Gopal vs ) Sri.T.K.Gopalappa on 9 April, 2021

74) Plaintiff's contention is that he is having equal 1/5th right over suit schedule properties along with Defendants No.1 to 4. Suit schedule properties are proved as ancestral properties. Alienation of 'B' schedule properties took place in the year 2002 before coming into force of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, whereby daughter is conferred the status of co-parcener with effect from 09.09.2005. Proviso to Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 saves the disposition, alienation, partition or testamentary disposition which had taken place before 20.12.2004. Said proposition of law has been clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma and others, [(2020) 9 SCC 1]. It is worthwhile to read para- 137, which reads thus :
Bangalore District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Preamlal vs Laxminbai on 13 October, 2022

11. Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was amended in 2005 wherein the daughters were included to be the co-parceners. The amended Section purports that the daughter of co-parcener shall by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son. This provision was further subject of interpretation by the Supreme Court in the matter of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma and others reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1 and the reference was answered as under:-
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - 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

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
1   2 3 4 Next