Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 341 (1.61 seconds)
Documents citing Mst. Rukhmabai vs Lala Laxminarayan And Others on 17 November, 1959

Ram Asrey And Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation And ... on 2 January, 2024

Similar view was taken in Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxminarayan [Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxminarayan, (1960) 2 SCR 253 : AIR 1960 SC 335] and Appasaheb Peerappa Chamdgade v. Devendra Peerappa Chamdgade [Appasaheb Peerappa Chamdgade v. Devendra Peerappa Chamdgade, (2007) 1 SCC 521] . The law is thus well settled that the burden lies upon the person who alleges the existence of the Hindu Undivided Family to prove the same."
Allahabad High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - S Lavania - Full Document

Amudha vs Janardhanan .. ... on 13 July, 2015

19.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has also relied upon the decision reported in AIR 1960 SC 335 (Mst.Rukhmabai vs. Lala Laxinarayan and others), wherein it was held that there is a presumption in Hindu law that a family is joint, there can be a division is status among the members of a joint Hindu family by definement of shares which is technically called division in status. No presumption that any property whether movable or immovable, held by a member of a joint Hindu family, is joint family property. The burden lies upon the person who asserts that a particular property is joint family property to establish that fact. Once it was established, the burden shifted to the member of the family setting up the claim that it is his personal property. It is appropriate to incorporate paragraph No.5, which reads as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - R Mala - Full Document

Amudha vs Janardhanan .. ... on 13 July, 2015

19.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has also relied upon the decision reported in AIR 1960 SC 335 (Mst.Rukhmabai vs. Lala Laxinarayan and others), wherein it was held that there is a presumption in Hindu law that a family is joint, there can be a division is status among the members of a joint Hindu family by definement of shares which is technically called division in status. No presumption that any property whether movable or immovable, held by a member of a joint Hindu family, is joint family property. The burden lies upon the person who asserts that a particular property is joint family property to establish that fact. Once it was established, the burden shifted to the member of the family setting up the claim that it is his personal property. It is appropriate to incorporate paragraph No.5, which reads as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - R Mala - Full Document

Reserved On: 01.04.2026 vs Of on 20 May, 2026

In Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxminarayan, AIR 1960 SC 332, their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that there can be "right to sue" until there is an accrual of the right asserted in the suit and its infringement, or at ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 10:49:00 :::CIS 61 2026:HHC:18430 least a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right, by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted. Their Lordships have held as under:
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 76 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Master Swapnil Jain vs Sanjay Jain And Ors on 19 August, 2023

Rukhmabai v. Lal Laxminarayan & Ors. (1960) 2 SCR 253: AIR 1960 SC 335, the burden lies upon the person who CS DJ No.129/2017 Swapnil Jain v. Sanjay Jain & Ors. Page No.26 / 47 asserts that a particular property is joint family property to establish that fact. But if he proves that there was sufficient joint family nucleous from and out of which the said property could have been acquired, the burden shifts to the member of the family setting up the claim that it is his personal property to establish that the said property has been acquired without any assistance from the joint family property.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ram Gopal vs Of on 11 January, 2024

In Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxminarayan [AIR 1960 SC 335 : (1960) 2 SCR 253] , the three- Judge Bench noticed the earlier judgments and summed up the legal position in the following words: (AIR p. 349, para 33) '33. ... The right to sue under Article 120 of the [1908 Act] accrues when the defendant has clearly or unequivocally threatened to infringe the right asserted by the plaintiff in the suit. Every threat by a party to such a right, however ineffective and innocuous it may be, cannot be considered to be a clear and unequivocal threat so as to compel him to file a suit. Whether a particular threat gives rise to a compulsory cause of action depends upon the question whether that ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2024 20:34:23 :::CIS 52 threat effectively invades or jeopardizes the said right.'
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

T.R.Ramesh vs Management Of Citibank N.A on 30 May, 2024

In Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxminarayan [Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxminarayan, AIR 1960 SC 335] , the three-Judge Bench noticed the earlier judgments and summed up the legal position in the following words: (Rukhmabai case [Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxminarayan, AIR 1960 SC 335] , AIR p. 349, para 33) ‘33. … The right to sue under Article 120 of the [1908 Act] accrues when the defendant has clearly or unequivocally threatened to infringe the right asserted by the plaintiff in the 62/85 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.81 of 2013 suit. Every threat by a party to such a right, however ineffective and innocuous it may be, cannot be considered to be a clear and unequivocal threat so as to compel him to file a suit. Whether a particular threat gives rise to a compulsory cause of action depends upon the question whether that threat effectively invades or jeopardises the said right.’
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ram Gopal vs Of on 11 January, 2024

In Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxminarayan [AIR 1960 SC 335 : (1960) 2 SCR 253] , the three- Judge Bench noticed the earlier judgments and summed up the legal position in the following words: (AIR p. 349, para 33) '33. ... The right to sue under Article 120 of the [1908 Act] accrues when the defendant has clearly or unequivocally threatened to infringe the right asserted by the plaintiff in the suit. Every threat by a party to such a right, however ineffective and innocuous it may be, cannot be considered to be a clear and unequivocal threat so as to compel him to file a suit. Whether a particular threat gives rise to a compulsory cause of action depends upon the question whether that ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2024 20:34:28 :::CIS 52 threat effectively invades or jeopardizes the said right.'
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next