Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.91 seconds)
Documents citing Nimbavva S/O Basalingayya Hiremath vs Channaveerayya S/O Gurushantayya ... on 26 August, 2013

Mr. Parameshwara Poojary vs Prema on 18 September, 2024

The facts of the case on hand and the facts of the case that were involved in Nimbavva's case (referred supra) are completely different. In the cited case, the propositus died on 04.01.1974 i.e., prior to 01.03.1974, which was the appointed date under the KLR Act. One of the sons of the original tenant sought and obtained occupancy rights in respect of the land. It was therefore, pointed out in the cited judgment that the person, who was registered as an occupant became the absolute owner as the married daughters were not entitled to seek occupancy rights as they were not members of a family.
Karnataka High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ishwar S/O. Badka Naik (Deceased) And ... vs Smt. Jattamma Yane Mastamma Kom ... on 24 May, 2023

N.Padmamma's case (stated supra), the law declared in Nimbavva's case by another Division Bench of this Court was not a good law and arrived at a conclusion that there is no provision delineating the mode of succession to the lands that are conferred on tenants under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and the only substantive provision that determines succession to such property is Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which is a Central Legislation. Therefore, the reliance placed by the appellants on the judgment in Nimbavva is unacceptable to the present facts and circumstances of the case.
Karnataka High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Devaki @ Vanitha Bhandarthi vs Smt. Mohini on 23 November, 2017

23. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, in the case of NIMBAVVA V/S CHANNAVEERAYYA reported in ILR(KAR)-2013-0-6202 / 18 KCCR-2015-1-205 it was the case where a married daughter was not a family member in view of definition of the "family" under Section 2(2) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, that would not arise in the present case. It was not the contention of the plaintiff before the trial Court or this Court that 5th defendant is not entitled for share, as she was married. Therefore, it is not open for the defendants to take such contentions at this stage of the proceeding, when the judgment and decree holding that all the parties are entitled to 1/3rd share each has attained finality. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is entirely different and not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - B Veerappa - Full Document

Sri. Ningappa S/O Neelappa Guddaraddi vs Sri. Vishnappa S/O Neelappa Guddaraddi on 20 February, 2024

10. The fact that the suit Item No.1 was granted to Hanumappa and after his death was transferred to the name of the father of the plaintiff and defendant is not much in dispute. The question whether the daughters are entitled to share in the suit Item No.1 is no longer res integra. In view of the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to which I was a party where it was held that, 1 (2015) 1 KCCR 205 -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:4043 RSA No. 100278 of 2021 once the land is granted by the Tribunal, the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 kicks in and therefore, even daughters are entitled to the suit Item No.1. The contention of the learned counsel for the defendant that the issue is fully covered by the judgment of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of NIMBAVVA AND OTHERS Vs. CHANNAVEERAYYA AND OTHERS is therefore rejected.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Venkamma vs Kushala on 1 December, 2022

21. He also placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of NIMBAVVA vs. CHANNAVEERAYYA5, to contend that the married daughters are excluded under the definition of "family" under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, in view of Section 24 of the Act and to contend that plaintiff and defendant Nos.5 and 6 being the married daughters are not the members of the family. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellants prays for allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court and to restore the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and consequently dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with costs.
Karnataka High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Joseph K A vs Mary on 27 June, 2023

NC: 2023:KHC:22237 MFA No. 5800 of 2022 the year 1964 and grant was made in the year 1981 and same is not disputed by the defendants. The Trial Court taken note of the judgment of NIMBAVVA's case, which is also relied upon by the counsel for the appellant before this Court and this Court also in paragraph 19 comes to the conclusion that the Land Reforms Act is a special enactment which has been enacted for the benefit of cultivator, the same cannot be deviated by this Court by applying the provision of Hindu Succession Act. It is also not in dispute that it is settled law that the Land Reforms Act was brought with an intention to protect the interest of the cultivators. It is also the claim of the plaintiff that her grandfather was cultivating the said property and to settle the dispute between the members of the family of the grandfather, item Nos.1 and 2 properties were given to defendant No.1 and the said pleading is made in paragraph 2 of the plaint in respect of item No.2 is concerned and whether the grandfather was on lease prior to granting of the land in favour of defendant No.1 also to be taken note of and already there was a settlement deed
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - H P Sandesh - Full Document

Arvind S/O Narasimha Kamat vs Sunanda W/O. Jandardhan Shanbhag on 13 January, 2020

In order to pursue their contentions as stated above, the defendants relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nimbavva 27 and Others vs. Channaveerayya and Others reported in ILR 2013 KAR 6202 to contend that the daughters who were married were not entitled to succeed to tenanted property. The facts of the case on hand and the facts of the case that were involved in Nimbavva's case (referred supra) are completely different. In the cited case, the propositus died on 04.01.1974 i.e., prior to 01.03.1974, which was the appointed date under the KLR Act. One of the sons of the original tenant sought and obtained occupancy rights in respect of the land. It was therefore, pointed out in the cited judgment that the person, who was registered as an occupant became the absolute owner as the married daughters were not entitled to seek occupancy rights as they were not members of a family.
Karnataka High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Smt. Sharavva W/O Fakkirayya ... vs Smt. Channabasamma W/O Kuberagouda ... on 13 October, 2023

13. In the appeal preferred by the defendants, the first appellate Court has considered the contentions put forth and upon 11 a re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record has affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court. The first appellate Court noticing the Judgment of the division Bench of this Court in the case of Nimbavva and Others Vs. Channaveerayya and Others6 as also in the case of Ramesh Sangappa Ragha4 has followed the Judgment in the case of Ramesh Sangappa Ragha4, since it was a later Judgment.
Karnataka High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next