Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (2.15 seconds)
Documents citing Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma & Ors on 15 May, 2018

Karamjit Kaur vs Mehar Singh And Ors on 16 December, 2020

It has been held in Vaneeta Sharma's case ibid to the effect that tt cannot be inferred that the daughter is conferred with the right only on the death of a living coparcener. By declaration contained in section 6, she has been made a coparcener. The precise declaration made in section 6 (1) has to 13 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 07-02-2021 05:02:07 ::: RSA 775 of 2018 (O&M) -14- be taken to its logical end; otherwise, it would amount to a denial of the very right to a daughter expressly conferred by the legislature. Survivorship as a mode of succession of property of a Mitakshara coparcener, has been abrogated with effect from 9.9.2005 by section 6(3).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - F D Singh - 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

Smt.Gangamma vs Sri K.M.Basvaradhya on 3 November, 2020

In view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma's case (supra), when the daughter is held to be coparcener by birth and when the suit properties are coparcenary properties, the provisions of Karnataka Hindu Law Women's Rights Act, are not applicable to the facts of the case and therefore, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendants in Annamma as 168 OS.3151/2004 well as L.Gowramma's case (supra) are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
Bangalore District Court Cites 57 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramesh Sangappa Ragha @ Raghannavar vs Smt. Kushnavva @ Hemalata on 5 October, 2020

Insofar as the recent judgment is by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and others, RFA No.100274/2017 : 15 : reported in AIR 2020 SC 3717. Insofar as the applicability of the said judgment is concerned, which is to be noted that when once statute is interpreted as in the case of 'Vineeta Sharma' it is entitled to all enactment in other words meaning of a particular section is interpreted how to be read and interpreted.
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - R V Hosmani - 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

Sangappa Sidramappa Bisnal vs Jyoti D/O Ashok Patar And Ors on 10 December, 2020

Of course the question involved in that decision is now finally decided in Vineeta Sharma's case referred (supra). It is evident that, the plaintiffs by filing rejoinder have prayed that, the sale deed executed by defendant Nos.1 & 3 is not binding on their share. Even though there is specific prayer, the court has not formally stated in the relief column or operative portion of Judgment in this regard. But that itself is not a ground to interfere with the Judgment of the First Appellate Court. It is settled principle of law that, when a suit is filed for partition and during the pendency of 14 the suit if any property is sold by one of the party then it is between the parties and the purchaser to work out their remedy and the plaintiffs can seek partition only stating that, such a sale is not binding on them or their share. In fact the plaintiffs have filed rejoinder stating that the sale deed as null and void. Be that as it may. Anyway both the Courts after considering the oral and documentary evidence have allotted share to the plaintiffs and defendants.
Karnataka High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - P N Desai - Full Document

Siddappa S/O Sidram Polisgol vs Gangawwa Bhimappa Mallapur on 14 August, 2020

12. Apart from the above two substantial questions, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that share allotted by the Courts below is incorrect, but in view of the recent pronouncement of the judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vineetha Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and others, decided on 15.05.2018, this Court is of the opinion that the Trial Court is justified in allotting 1/8th share to the plaintiff.
Karnataka High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - V Srishananda - Full Document
1   2 3 Next