Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1119 (0.95 seconds)
Documents citing Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma & Ors on 15 May, 2018

M. Sathishkumar vs Subbanna Gounder

32. Eventhough the judgment of the three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma's case (cited supra) ruling that the provisions of the substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 are required to be given full effect, notwithstanding that a preliminary decree has been passed, because the daughters are to be given share in coparcenary property equal to that of a son in pending proceedings for final decree or in an appeal and also has a binding force, in the case on hand, the appellants/plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the suit properties, as the registered partition between the respondents 1 to 5 has been effected before the cut-off date 20.12.2004 i.e., on 08.06.2004 i.e., before the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act came into force on 09.09.2005. Hence, this Court holds that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Thamizharasi vs /16 on 9 July, 2024

21. After the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and others (supra) there is a change in the position of law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that irrespective of the date of death of the father, the daughter will have equal right as that of the son in the ancestral properties of the father. Therefore, Ammaniammal will be entitled to 1/3rd share in the properties allotted to Karuppana Nadar, where Karuppana Nadar and Kandasamy will be entitled to 1/3rd share. The 1/3rd share of Karuppana Nadar upon his death would devolve on his two children viz., Ammaniammal and Kandasamy. Therefore, Kandasamy and Ammaniammal would each be entitled to ½ share in the suit properties.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - R Subramanian - Full Document

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

Shri. Kamalakar Purushotam Inamdar And ... vs Smt. Rajani Shriram Maliwale And Ors on 14 June, 2024

42. The dictum of the Apex Court as noted from the decision of Vineeta Sharma ((supra) is that the daughter acquires interest in the coparcenary by birth and the rights can be claimed with effect from 9 th September 2005. The provisions were held to be of retroactive application as they confer benefits based on an antecedent event, the antecedent event being birth of daughter. The Apex Court was answering the reference concerning interpretation of Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act of 2005. The Apex Court while answering the reference has categorically observed that the right can be asserted by the daughter on and from 9th September, 2005 although the right is acquired by birth. It can thus be concluded that as assertion of the right is from 9 th September, 2005 the daughter should be living as on 9 th September, 2005. In the process of answering the reference, the Apex Court has touched upon every aspect of the right of the daughter vis a vis the amendment of the year 2005 to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Apex Court has categorically observed that the daughter can assert the right on and from 9th September, 2005 which right is given by birth and is to be exercised from the particular date i.e. 9 th September, 2005. As the exercise of the right is from 9 th September, 2005, the Apex Court rsk 33 of 38 ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 12:11:44 ::: 5-SA-335-15-F-7.doc has opined in paragraph 80 that the daughters should be living on 9 th September, 2005 and has held in paragraph 114 that if a daughter is alive on the date of enforcement of the Amendment Act, she becomes a coparcener with effect from date of the Amendment Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - S U Deshmukh - Full Document

Shri. Kamalakar Purushotam Inamdar And ... vs Smt. Rajani Shriram Maliwale And Ors on 14 June, 2024

42. The dictum of the Apex Court as noted from the decision of Vineeta Sharma ((supra) is that the daughter acquires interest in the coparcenary by birth and the rights can be claimed with effect from 9 th September 2005. The provisions were held to be of retroactive application as they confer benefits based on an antecedent event, the antecedent event being birth of daughter. The Apex Court was answering the reference concerning interpretation of Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act of 2005. The Apex Court while answering the reference has categorically observed that the right can be asserted by the daughter on and from 9th September, 2005 although the right is acquired by birth. It can thus be concluded that as assertion of the right is from 9 th September, 2005 the daughter should be living as on 9 th September, 2005. In the process of answering the reference, the Apex Court has touched upon every aspect of the right of the daughter vis a vis the amendment of the year 2005 to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Apex Court has categorically observed that the daughter can assert the right on and from 9th September, 2005 which right is given by birth and is to be exercised from the particular date i.e. 9 th September, 2005. As the exercise of the right is from 9 th September, 2005, the Apex Court rsk 33 of 38 ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 12:11:52 ::: 5-SA-335-15-F-7.doc has opined in paragraph 80 that the daughters should be living on 9 th September, 2005 and has held in paragraph 114 that if a daughter is alive on the date of enforcement of the Amendment Act, she becomes a coparcener with effect from date of the Amendment Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - S U Deshmukh - Full Document

Rashmi vs Tulasiprabha on 2 September, 2024

In the judgment relied by the defendant in (2020) 9 SCC 1 between Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma & Ors., the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the application of Section 6 of the Hindu O.S.No.1610/2007 14 Succession Act, 1956 is retrospective in nature and not prospective. But, exception to amendment, saves the registered sale deeds and partition decree if they have been executed before 20.12.2004. Hon'ble Apex Court in said Judgment at para No.137.1 and 137.2 held as under :-
Bangalore District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next