Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 121 (3.62 seconds)
Documents citing Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma & Ors on 15 May, 2018

Mrs. Deepak Kaur vs S. Hari Simran Singh & Ors on 5 May, 2021

16. It is clear that the present suit is filed for final decree of the partition of the share of the plaintiff. By the amendment, the suit remains a suit seeking a final decree of partition of the suit property. The only amendment sought by the present application for amendment, is to modify the stated share of the plaintiff in the suit property. This is based on subsequent developments namely, the interpretation of the Hindu Succession Act as now held by the Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors. (supra). At this stage, the court is not to look into the merits or demerits of the averments that are sought to be introduced in the plaint by way of amendment. It cannot be said that the nature of the suit has changed.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - J Nath - Full Document

P.M.Panneerselvam vs P.Sigappiyammal on 12 November, 2021

22.At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer to the decision reported in 2020 9 SCC 1:2020 5 LW 300 (Vineeth Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and others), which was rendered by the Larger Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court, pursuant to the reference, concerning the interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (in short, the Act of 1956) as amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (in short, the Act of 2005), made, in view of the conflicting verdicts rendered in the two Division Bench judgements of the Honourable Supreme Court in 2016 2 LW 865:2016 2 SCC 36 (Prakash and others Vs. Phulavati and others) and 2018 3 LW 341: 2018 3 SCC 343 (Danamma Vs. Amar). In the said decision, there was a detailed discussion regarding prospective statute, retrospective statute and retroactive statute and it was held as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A A Nakkiran - Full Document

P.Hemamalini vs K.Palani Malai on 3 August, 2021

51. Conclusions: Finally, in the light of the above settled legal position, if we apply Section 29-A of the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989 (1 of 1990), Hindu women in the State of Tamil Nadu would be facing inequality with regard to inheriting rights of coparcenary property, more importantly, the judgment of the three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma's case ruling that the provisions of the substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 are required to be given full effect, also has a binding force, therefore, the appellant/plaintiff Mrs.P.Hemamalini will not be entitled to a share in the suit properties, as the registered partition between the respondents 1 & 2 has been effected before the cut-off date 20.12.2004 i.e., on 11.5.2001 i.e., before the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act came into force. Hence, we hold that the trial Court has 76/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ A.S.No.687 of 2018 rightly dismissed the suit. Accordingly, confirming the impugned judgment and decree, the first appeal fails and it is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.
Madras High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 2 - T Raja - Full Document

Sri. Ravindranath Mane vs Smt. Meera Satyananda Nikam on 12 November, 2021

By way of answer to this point, Sri.M.R.Rajagopal urged that Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (as it stood prior to 09.09.2005) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel also submitted that it is a case where the suit was filed by two brothers and a sister jointly and two brothers supported the case of third plaintiff Smt.Meera Nikam because they executed the release deeds of their share in her favor. It is a suit for partition by two male members and a female member against another male member of the family. Hence the contention that the suit is barred under Section 23 of the Act is untenable in law. He further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in VINEETA SHARMA VS. 40 RAKESH SHARMA & ORS reported in AIR 2020 SC 3717, has clarified the position in this regard.
Karnataka High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - J Mulimani - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next