Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 82 (2.99 seconds)
Documents citing Hardeo Rai vs Sakuntala Devi And Others on 29 April, 2008

Randhir Kumar vs Budhdeo Kumar Kashyap on 18 November, 2024

9.1 Admittedly, the suit was for recovery of the possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. It is the settled law that in a suit under Section 6 for the Specific Relief Act, the title for ownership in regard to the property in question is not to be adjudicated. The dispute which is between the parties whether the property in question had been partitioned before executing the agreement to sell, in favour of the plaintiff in suit by one of the co-sharer, same has no bearing while deciding the suit under Section 6 for Specific Relief Act. In this very suit, only the two issues are to be decided by the learned Trial Court, firstly, whether the plaintiff of the suit no. 14 of 2021 was in possession of the property in suit? Secondly, whether the plaintiff of the suit has been dispossessed from the property in 4 question by force without adopting due course of law? This dispute is to be decided between the plaintiff and the defendant of the suit. 9.2 The petitioner who have come herein having assailed the order which was passed by the learned Trial Court rejecting the application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure pleading themselves to be the co-sharer of the property in question and have also pleaded that the very property in question being of joint possession and joint ownership, they were necessary parties. This plea is not tenable taking into consideration the issues which are to be decided between the parties. 9.3 Learned counsel for the petitioner had relied the case law of Gazara Vishnu Gosavi vs. Prakash Nanasaheb Kamble & Ors. (Supra) and also Hardeo Rai vs. Sakuntala Devi & Ors., the benefit of both the case law cannot be given to the petitioner, since in Gazara Vishnu Gosavi, the suit was under Section 8 of the Specific Relief Act and in the case law Hardeo Rai vs. Sakuntala Devi & Ors. the suit was for specific performance for agreement to sell.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S Chand - Full Document

Annappattu vs Muthusamy on 27 April, 2012

In the case discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2008 (7) SCC 46 (Hardeo Rai v. Sakuntala Devi and others), the co-parcenary properties were found to have lost their character on entering into a partition between the co-sharers whereas this property being the exclusive property of mother was divided among the daughters will not lose its character so as to deprive the right under Section 15 (2) of Hindu Succession Act.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - V P Karuppiah - Full Document

Shri V S H Mohamed Ali vs Shri M G Ramamurthy on 3 July, 2019

10. Hardeo Rai Vs. Shakuntala Devi [supra] discusses concept of unity of interest in a Mitakshara joint 8 family. It is held here that when intention to separate is expressed, share of each coparcener becomes clear, therefore joint tenancy comes to an end and the members of the family become tenants in common. This decision is cited probably in the context that one brother of the respondent filed a suit for partition, which brought to an end, as it was argued, the co-ownership. This principle cannot be applied to the case on hand in view of the fact that no other member of the family took objection for evicting the petitioner tenant by the respondent alone.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Periyathambi Padyachi vs Chinthamani

In Hardeo Rai Vs. Sakuntala Devi and others, (cited supra) it was pleaded that the property was not already partitioned but, the evidence on record would show that the parties were in separate possession of their properties. Under the said circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that for the purpose of assigning one's interest of the property, it was not necessary that partition by metes and bounds amongst the coparceners must take place. When an intention is expressed to partition the coparcenary property, the share of each of the coparceners becomes clear and ascertainable. Once the share of a coparcener is determined, it ceases to be a coparcenary property. Further, it was held that where a coparcener takes definite share in the property, he is owner of that share and as such he can alienate the same by sale or mortgage in the same manner as he can dispose of his separate property. In this case, it is not the case of the defendant that already partition took place between himself and the plaintiffs 2 to 4 and therefore, the aforesaid decision will not apply to the facts of this case.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - P Rajamanickam - Full Document

Smt. Om Wati Sharma vs . Sh. Sanjay Sharma ... 1 on 17 December, 2013

17. Further, in the case of Hardeo Rai Vs. Shakuntala Devi, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also observed that when there is co­parcenary property and when the intention is expressed to partition the property, then the share of each of co­parceners become clear and once the share of a co­ parcener is determined, then it ceases to be co­parcenary Suit No.160/12/04 ...39/50 Smt. Om Wati Sharma Vs. Sh. Sanjay Sharma ... 40 property. Further, where a co­parcener takes a definite share in the said property, he becomes the owner of that share and as such, he can alienate the said property by sale or mortgage in the same manner as he can dispose of his separate property.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Radha Bai vs Ram Narayan on 22 November, 2019

“5. According to the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law all the property of a Hindu joint family is held in collective ownership by all the coparceners in a quasi­ corporate capacity. The textual authority of the Mitakshara lays down in express terms that the joint family property is held in trust for the joint family members then living and thereafter to be born (see Mitakshara, Chapter I, 1­27). The incidents of co­ parcenership under the Mitakshara law are: first, the lineal male descendants of a person up to the third generation, acquire on birth ownership in the ancestral properties of such person; secondly, that such descendants can at any time work out their rights by asking for partition; thirdly, that till partition each member has got ownership extending over the entire property, conjointly with the rest; fourthly, that as a result of such co­ ownership the possession and enjoyment of the properties is common; fifthly, that no alienation of the property is possible unless it be for necessity, without the concurrence of the coparceners, and sixthly, that the interest of a deceased member lapses on his death to the survivors. A coparcenary under the Mitakshara School is a creature of law and cannot arise by act of parties except in so far that on adoption the adopted son becomes a co­ parcener with his adoptive father as regards the ancestral properties of the latter.” (emphasis supplied) This exposition has been taken note of in Hardeo Rai (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 5 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Smt Shyama Devi vs Smt Manju Shukla And Others on 8 April, 2020

30. It is apt to observe that the aforesaid dispute arose from the partition suit no.21/73 in which both the appellant and the respondent no.1 herein were parties as legal heirs of deceased Jamuna Prasad. Even otherwise also, it is settled law that when a male Hindu dies leaving surviving female relative specified in Class-1 of the Schedule, his interest in the coparcenary property has to devolve by testamentary or intestate succession and not by survivorship and to carry out this object, the concept of notional partition has been employed under Explanation-1. This Court finds support from a Larger Bench judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurupad Khandappa Magdum (supra) and Division Bench judgements in Pavitri Devi & Anr. (supra) and Hardeo Rai (supra).
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - M K Goyal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next