Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.40 seconds)
Documents citing Sri B Appanna Reddy Since Decd By Lrs vs Sri S B Narayana Reddy S/O Late Boda Reddy on 21 January, 2010

Santhamani vs S.Saradamani on 8 February, 2013

"15. In the present case, the preliminary decree was passed on 11-8-1992. The first appeal was dismissed on 20-3-1998 and the second appeal was dismissed on 1-10-1999 as barred by limitation. By the preliminary decree, shares of the parties were determined but the actual partition/division had not taken place. Therefore, the proceedings of the suit instituted by Respondent 1 cannot be treated to have become final so far as the actual partition of the joint family properties is concerned and in view of the law laid down in Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal and S. Sai Reddy v. S. Narayana Reddy4, it was open to the appellant to claim enhancement of her share in the joint family properties because she had not married till the enforcement of Karnataka Act 23 of 1994. Section 6-A of Karnataka Act 23 of 1994 is identical to Section 29-A of the Andhra Pradesh Act.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - G Rajasuria - Full Document

Krishna Gupta And Anr. vs M/S Rajinder Nath & Co Huf And Ors on 11 February, 2013

15. In the present case, the preliminary decree was passed on 11.8.1992. The first appeal was dismissed on 20.3.1998 and the second appeal was dismissed on 1.10.1999 as barred by limitation. By the preliminary decree, shares of the parties were determined but the actual partition/division had not taken place. Therefore, the proceedings of the suit instituted by Respondent No.1 cannot be treated to have become final so far as the actual partition of the joint family properties is concerned and in view of the law laid down in Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal and S. Sai Reddy v. S. Narayana Reddy, it was open to the appellant to claim enhancement of her share in the joint family properties because she had not married till the enforcement of the Karnataka Act 23 of 1994. Section 6-A of the Karnataka Act 23 of 1994 is identical to Section 29A of the Andhra Pradesh Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 14 - H Kohli - Full Document

Prema vs Nanje Gowda & Ors on 10 May, 2011

Therefore, there is no reason why ratio of the judgment in S. Sai Reddy v. S. Narayana Reddy (supra) should not be applied for deciding the appellant's claim for grant of share at par with male members of the joint family. In our considered view, the trial Court and the learned Single Judge were clearly in error when they held that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the Karnataka Act No.23 of 1994 because she had 14 not filed an application for enforcing the right accruing to her under Section 6A during the pendency of the first and the second appeals or that she had not challenged the preliminary decree by joining defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5 in filing the second appeal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 55 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Shri Yeshwant Maruti Lonkar vs Smt.Anjanabai Dinkar Dhamdhere on 10 June, 2013

In support of this proposition, he relied upon paragraph 20 of Kalyani (supra) and S.Sai Reddy Vs. S. Narayana Reddy12 and in particular paragraph 7 thereof wherein the Apex court has held that in a suit for partition, a preliminary decree is passed determining shares of the members of the family. The final decree follows, thereafter, allotting specific properties and directing the partition of the immovable properties by metes and bounds. Unless and until the final decree is passed and the allottees of the shares are put in possession of the respective property, the partition is not complete.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - R G Ketkar - Full Document

Delhi Transport Corporation vs The Presiding Officer,Industrial ... on 17 November, 2011

Earlier, in the decision reported as S. Sai Reddy v. S. Narayana Reddy : (1991)3SCC647 , the Supreme Court had to consider the impact of an enactment, which conferred a new statutory right, by way of entitlement to female Hindus, in co- parcenary properties. Upon resistance to use of the amendment in pending proceedings, on the ground that the rights were freshly created, and applied prospectively, and could not apply in pending proceedings, which were governed by law existing on the date of institution of proceedings, the Court held that:
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - P K Bhasin - Full Document

Ganduri Koteshwaramma & Anr vs Chakiri Yanadi & Anr on 12 October, 2011

18. This Court in the case of S. Sai Reddy vs. S. Narayana Reddy and Others2 had an occasion to consider the question identical to the question with which we are faced in the present appeal. That was a case where during the pendency of the proceedings in the suit for partition before the trial court and prior to 1 AIR 1967 SC 1470 2 (1991) 3 SCC 647 11 the passing of final decree, the 1956 Act was amended by the State Legislature of Andhra Pradesh as a result of which unmarried daughters became entitled to a share in the joint family property. The unmarried daughters respondents 2 to 5 therein made application before the trial court claiming their share in the property after the State amendment in the 1956 Act. The trial court by its judgment and order dated August 24, 1989 rejected their application on the ground that the preliminary decree had already been passed and specific shares of the parties had been declared and, thus, it was not open to the unmarried daughters to claim share in the property by virtue of the State amendment in the 1956 Act. The unmarried daughters preferred revision against the order of the trial court before the High Court. The High Court set aside the order of the trial court and declared that in view of the newly added Section 29-A, the unmarried daughters were entitled to share in the joint family property. The High Court further directed the trial court to determine the shares of the unmarried daughters accordingly. The appellant therein challenged the order of the High Court before this Court. This Court considered the matter thus;
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 173 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Shri Yeshwant Maruti Lonkar vs Smt.Anjanabai Dinkar Dhamdhere on 10 June, 2013

In support of this proposition, he relied upon paragraph 20 of Kalyani (supra) and S.Sai Reddy Vs. S. Narayana Reddy12 and in particular paragraph 7 thereof wherein the Apex court has held that in a suit for partition, a preliminary decree is passed determining shares of the members of the family. The final decree follows, thereafter, allotting specific properties and directing the partition of the immovable properties by metes and bounds. Unless and until the final decree is passed and the allottees of the shares are put in possession of the respective property, the partition is not complete.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - R G Ketkar - Full Document
1