Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.80 seconds)
Documents citing Aditya Murgai vs Ashok Murgai on 14 December, 2001

Mr. Sulabh Puri & Anr. vs Mr. Sudhir Puri & Ors. on 18 February, 2013

In FAO (OS) 553/2001, Master Aditya Murgai v. Ashok Murgai, disposed of on November 1, 2002, it was observed by the Division Bench that it is settled law that on partition of a coparcenary property, the property falling into the share of each coparcener assumes a dual character. It was further observed that it becomes his separate and individual property qua other coparceners with whom partition has taken place, but as regards his own male lineal descendants it retains the character of ancestral property and, therefore, a son, grandson born before/or after partition, take a share in the property by birth. Therefore, even assuming that the property is HUF property, whatever share the applicant may have in such joint family property, the same could be claimed only through his father, the appellant herein.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - Manmohan - Full Document

S. Jasdeep Singh vs S. Kehar Singh And Ors. on 28 April, 2004

In FAO (OS) 553/2001, Master Aditya Murgai v. Ashok Murgai, disposed of on November 1, 2002, it was observed by the Division Bench that it is settled law that on partition of a coparcenary property, the property falling into the share of each coparcener assumes a dual character. It was further observed that it becomes his separate and individual property qua other coparceners with whom partition has taken place, but as regards his own male lineal descendants it retains the character of ancestral property and, therefore, a son, grandson born before/or after partition, take a share in the property by birth. Therefore, in the present case whatever share the plaintiff may have in the property could be claimed only through his father, defendant No.3.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 6 - M Sharma - Full Document

Om Prakash Gulshan vs J.D. Gulshan And Ors. on 18 February, 2005

In FAO (OS) 553/2001, Master Aditya Murgai v. Ashok Murgai, disposed of on November 1, 2002, it was observed by the Division Bench that it is settled law that on partition of a coparcenary property, the property falling into the share of each coparcener assumes a dual character. It was further observed that it becomes his separate and individual property qua other coparceners with whom partition has taken place, but as regards his own male lineal descendants it retains the character of ancestral property and, therefore, a son, grandson born before/or after partition, take a share in the property by birth. Therefore, even assuming that the property is HUF property, whatever share the applicant may have in such joint family property, the same could be claimed only through his father, the appellant herein.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 4 - M Sharma - Full Document

Master Vibhor Garg vs Sh. Yajesh Garg And Ors. on 21 March, 2006

The learned single Judge has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench in FAO (OS)No.553/2001 titled Master Aditya Murgai v. Ashok Murgai decided on 1.11.2002 and referred to para 9 of the Master Aditya Murgai case (Supra). The Division Bench observed that it is a settled law that on partition of a coparcenary property, the property falling into the share of each coparcener assumes a dual character. It becomes a separate individual property qua other coparceners with whom partition has taken place and for his lineal descendants it retains the character of ancestral property and therefore a son, grandson born before or after partition take a share in the property by birth.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S K Kaul - Full Document
1