Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 37 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing Sher Singh & Ors vs Gamdoor Singh on 13 December, 1996

Smt. Dropadi Devi And Ors. vs Shiv Chandra Dixit on 23 January, 2020

In Sher Singh Vs. Gamdoor Singh 1997 (2) HLR 81 (SC), the Court said that once existence of a joint family is not in dispute, necessarily the property held by family assumed the character of a coparcenary property and every member of family would be entitled, by birth, to a share in coparcenary property, unless any one of the coparcener pleads, by separate pleadings and proves, that some of the properties or all the properties are his self-acquired properties and cannot be blended in coparcenary property. Merely because the family is joint, there is no presumption of joint property. A Hindu, even if he be joint may possess separate property. Such property belongs exclusively to him. Neither member of the coparcenary, nor his male issue, acquires any interest in it by birth. On his death (intestate), it passes by succession to his heirs and not by survivorship to the surviving coparcener. The existence of joint family does not raise presumption that it owns properties jointly. But once joint family nucleus is either proved or admitted so as to draw inference that such property could have been acquired out of joint family funds, the burden shifts to the party alleging self acquisition, to establish affirmatively, that such property was acquired without aid of joint family. Initial burden always lies upon the party asserting that any item of property is joint family property.
Allahabad High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 9 - J Singh - Full Document

Garibey vs Deputy Director Of ... on 13 August, 2021

In Sher Singh Vs. Gamdoor Singh 1997 (2) HLR 81 (SC), the Court said that once existence of a joint family is not in dispute, necessarily the property held by family assumed the character of a coparcenary property and every member of family would be entitled, by birth, to a share in coparcenary property, unless any one of the coparcener pleads, by separate pleadings and proves, that some of the properties or all the properties are his self-acquired properties and cannot be blended in coparcenary property. Merely because the family is joint, there is no presumption of joint property. A Hindu, even if he be joint may possess separate property. Such property belongs exclusively to him. Neither member of the coparcenary, nor his male issue, acquires any interest in it by birth. On his death (intestate), it passes by succession to his heirs and not by survivorship to the surviving coparcener. The existence of joint family does not raise presumption that it owns properties jointly. But once joint family nucleus is either proved or admitted so as to draw inference that such property could have been acquired out of joint family funds, the burden shifts to the party alleging self acquisition, to establish affirmatively, that such property was acquired without aid of joint family. Initial burden always lies upon the party asserting that any item of property is joint family property.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Lalta Prasad And Others vs Haunsla Prasad And Others on 1 October, 2021

In Sher Singh Vs. Gamdoor Singh 1997 (2) HLR 81 (SC), the Court said that once existence of a joint family is not in dispute, necessarily the property held by family assumed the character of a coparcenary property and every member of family would be entitled, by birth, to a share in coparcenary property, unless any one of the coparcener pleads, by separate pleadings and proves, that some of the properties or all the properties are his self-acquired properties and cannot be blended in coparcenary property. Merely because the family is joint, there is no presumption of joint property. A Hindu, even if he be joint may possess separate property. Such property belongs exclusively to him. Neither member of the coparcenary, nor his male issue, acquires any interest in it by birth. On his death (intestate), it passes by succession to his heirs and not by survivorship to the surviving coparcener. The existence of joint family does not raise presumption that it owns properties jointly. But once joint family nucleus is either proved or admitted so as to draw inference that such property could have been acquired out of joint family funds, the burden shifts to the party alleging self acquisition, to establish affirmatively, that such property was acquired without aid of joint family. Initial burden always lies upon the party asserting that any item of property is joint family property.
Allahabad High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 4 - J Singh - Full Document

Shekhai vs D.D.C.And Another on 12 May, 2022

In Sher Singh Vs. Gamdoor Singh 1997 (2) HLR 81 (SC), the Court said that once existence of a joint family is not in dispute, necessarily the property held by family assumed the character of a coparcenary property and every member of family would be entitled, by birth, to a share in coparcenary property, unless any one of the coparcener pleads, by separate pleadings and proves, that some of the properties or all the properties are his self-acquired properties and cannot be blended in coparcenary property. Merely because the family is joint, there is no presumption of joint property. A Hindu, even if he be joint may possess separate property. Such property belongs exclusively to him. Neither member of the coparcenary, nor his male issue, acquires any interest in it by birth. On his death (intestate), it passes by succession to his heirs and not by survivorship to the surviving coparcener. The existence of joint family does not raise presumption that it owns properties jointly. But once joint family nucleus is either proved or admitted so as to draw inference that such property could have been acquired out of joint family funds, the burden shifts to the party alleging self acquisition, to establish affirmatively, that such property was acquired without aid of joint family. Initial burden always lies upon the party asserting that any item of property is joint family property.
Allahabad High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Ram Kishun And Others. vs The Asstt.Director Consolidation ... on 19 October, 2022

In Sher Singh Vs. Gamdoor Singh 1997 (2) HLR 81 (SC), the Court said that once existence of a joint family is not in dispute, necessarily the property held by family assumed the character of a coparcenary property and every member of family would be entitled, by birth, to a share in coparcenary property, unless any one of the coparcener pleads, by separate pleadings and proves, that some of the properties or all the properties are his self-acquired properties and cannot be blended in coparcenary property. Merely because the family is joint, there is no presumption of joint property. A Hindu, even if he be joint may possess separate property. Such property belongs exclusively to him. Neither member of the coparcenary, nor his male issue, acquires any interest in it by birth. On his death (intestate), it passes by succession to his heirs and not by survivorship to the surviving coparcener. The existence of joint family does not raise presumption that it owns properties jointly. But once joint family nucleus is either proved or admitted so as to draw inference that such property could have been acquired out of joint family funds, the burden shifts to the party alleging self acquisition, to establish affirmatively, that such property was acquired without aid of joint family. Initial burden always lies upon the party asserting that any item of property is joint family property.
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - J Singh - Full Document

Shyam Bihari Lal (Since Deceased) ... vs Santosh Chaturvedi on 28 November, 2007

16. Shri Subodh Kumar has relied upon Valliammai Achi v. Nagappa Chettiar and Anr. and Sher Singh and Ors. v. Gamdoor Singh . In this case, it was held that right in a Mitakshara family, which a son takes on his birth in the joint family in ancestral property, is wholly independent of his father and that the property held by the family assumes character of coparcenary property. Once existence of joint family was not in dispute, necessarily property held by the family assumes the character of coparcenary property and every member of the family would be entitled by birth to a share in the coparcenary property unless there is separate pleading and proof that some of the properties or all of the properties are his self acquired properties.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - S Ambwani - Full Document

Sharanjit Kaur vs Amarjit Singh And Another on 2 May, 2011

In Sher Singh vs Gamdoor Singh, 1997(1) Apex Court Journal 290 (SC), it has been held that once the existence of Joint Family is RSA No.3257 of 1987 -14- not in dispute, necessarily the property held by the family assumed the character of a coparcenary property and every member of the family is entitled by birth to a share in the coparcenary property unless it is proved that it is a self acquired property and could not be blended in the coparcenary property."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - J Chauhan - Full Document

Lakshmi Saran Agarwal & Others vs Guru Saran Agarwal, & Others on 27 November, 2015

In Sher Singh Vs. Gamdoor Singh 1997 (2) HLR 81 (SC), the Court said that once existence of a joint family is not in dispute, necessarily the property held by family assumed the character of a coparcenary property and every member of family would be entitled, by birth, to a share in coparcenary property, unless any one of the coparcener pleads, by separate pleadings and proves, that some of the properties or all the properties are his self-acquired properties and cannot be blended in coparcenary property. Merely because the family is joint, there is no presumption of joint property. A Hindu, even if he be joint, may possess separate property. Such property belongs exclusively to him. Neither member of the coparcenary, nor his male issue, acquires any interest in it by birth. On his death (intestate), it passes by succession to his heirs and not by survivorship to the surviving coparcener. The existence of joint family does not raise presumption that it owns properties jointly. But once joint family nucleus is either proved or admitted so as to draw inference that such property could have been acquired out of joint family funds, the burden shifts to the party alleging self acquisition, to establish affirmatively, that such property was acquired without aid of joint family. Initial burden always lies upon the party asserting that any item of property is joint family property.
Allahabad High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 1 - S Agarwal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next