Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing Jai Lal Sheo Chand, Decree-Holder vs Bhu Dev Bhola Singh, Judgment-Debtor on 5 January, 1956

Sri Chand vs Raj Bala And Ors on 9 June, 2025

39. Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 propounds a definite and uniform scheme of succession to the property of a female Hindu who dies intestate after the commencement of the Act. The section groups the heirs of a female intestate into five categories as Entries (a)-(e) and specified in sub-section (1). Sub- section (1), however, is not a complete statement of the law. Two exceptions, both of the same nature are engrafted by sub-section (2) on the otherwise uniform order of succession prescribed by sub-section (1). Broadly stated, the two exceptions are that if the female dies without leaving any issue, then (1) in respect of property inherited by her from her father or mother, that property will devolve not according to the order laid down in the five entries, but upon the heirs of the father; and (2) in respect of property inherited by her from her husband or father-in-law, it will devolve not according to the order laid down in the five Entries but upon the heirs of the husband. The basis of inheritance of a female Hindu's property who dies intestate would thus be the source from which such female Hindu came into possession of property and the manner of inheritance which would decide the manner of devolution. The basic aim of Section 15 (2) of the Act is to ensure that inherited property of an issueless female Hindu dying intestate goes back to its source.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chand Mal & Ors. vs Sumer Mal on 31 May, 2000

Thus from this judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Nand Lal's case, the relevant consideration for deciding the legal question is the construction of the terms of the document so as to infer the intention of the parties. The various cases referred to by the learned counsel of either of the parties are judgments subsequently rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court and mortgage deeds in those individual cases had been considered, and construed. Different conclusions have been arrived at, and both the learned counsel on either side referred to various judgments and tried to stress their language interpretation and asked for consideration of the mortgage deed in favour of their respective clients.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - N P Gupta - Full Document

Narota Ram Salig Ram vs Bhagwat Krishan And Ors. on 23 October, 1959

An appeal against this order was also dismissed by the learned District Judge on 30-9-1957 and a second appeal to this Court met with no better fate on 2-5-1958. With respect to the plea of a new tenancy the learned Subordinate Judge upheld the contention, in view of certain receipts showing payment of rent by the tenants, and on this ground dismissed the execution petition. On appeal the learned District Judge set aside the order of the first Court and relying on Jai Lal v. Bhu Dev Bhola Singh, 1956-58 Pun LR 267: (AIR 1956 Punj 256), came to the conclusion that there was no new lease intended to be created by the heirs of Chowdhry Kesho Ram. It seems that on the death of Chowdhry Kesho Ram his heirs were not in a position immediately to start reconstruction of the building and therefore they merely postponed eviction proceedings for about a year.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - I D Dua - Full Document

Panmal vs . Jamna Das on 5 January, 2015

5. Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellant/tenant relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ratan Lal Vs. Kanhaiya Lal reported in 1998 (3) RLW Raj. 1435 and in the case of Nand Lal Vs. Subhash Dev reported in 1980 RLW 490 and in the case of Rajinder Dhada Vs. Jagdish Singh reported in 2001 (10) JT 188, submitted the son, for whose necessity the eviction was sought, had separated from the family after partition and, therefore, the bonafide need of the landlord and family member could not be held to be bonafide need nor the son would fall within the definition of landlord or his family members, therefore, the grounds of eviction established u/s 13 1 (h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950') could not result into eviction decree against the tenant.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - V Kothari - Full Document
1