Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 784 (2.35 seconds)
Documents citing Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma on 11 August, 2020

K.Kailasamoorthy vs N.Indiradevi ... Plaintiff / 1St on 21 November, 2023

15.4. Though the learned Senior Counsel would seek to rely upon the another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Derha v. Visha & another, made in Civil Appeal No.4494 of 2010 dated 01.09.2023, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had applied the law as it stood prior to the enactment of Act 39 of 2005, we do not think we can safely take the judgment to be a precedent on the question of the right of a daughter as per the Amending Act 39 of 2005, since we do not find any reference to the Amending Act or the judgment in Vineeta Sharma V. Rakesh Sharma, in the said case.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - R Subramanian - Full Document

Gowri Ammal vs Balamurugan on 3 January, 2025

“74.3. Under the Mitakshara School of Hindu law, a member of a joint Hindu family can bring about his separation in status by a definite, unequivocal and unilateral declaration of his intention to separate himself from the family and enjoy his share in severalty. Thus, the institution of a suit for partition by a member of a joint family is a clear intimation of his intention to separate, and there was consequential severance of the status of jointness. Question before this Court in Vineeta Sharma [Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1 : (2021) 1 SCC (Civ) 119] was : in case during the pendency of partition suit or during the period between the passing of preliminary decree and final decree in the partition suit, any legislative amendment or any subsequent event takes place which results in enlargement or diminution of the shares of the parties or alteration of their rights, whether such legislative amendment or subsequent event can be into consideration and given effect to while passing final decree in the partition suit. The Court held that even though filing of partition suit brings about severance of status of jointness, such legislative amendment or subsequent event will have to be taken into consideration and given effect to in passing the final decree in the partition suit. This is because, the partition suit can be regarded as fully and completely decided only when the final decree is passed. It is by a final decree that partition of property of joint Hindu family takes place by metes and bounds.” Page 14 / 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - N S Kumar - Full Document

Act vs Vivekananda Virupaksha on 5 May, 2026

The daughter (P2) is not entitled because of the non-applicability of the Act, 1956, P2 would also not be entitled under the substituted section 6 of the Act, 1956 nor by virtue of Vineeta Sharma (supra). The subsequent purchasers from the daughter (Plantiff No.2) or her legal heirs would also not be entitled and their applications would not be maintainable for modification of the preliminary decree.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 57 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt Susheelamma Since Dead By Lrs vs K Seetharamaiah on 2 November, 2023

The contention of the appellants that in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Padmavathi vs. Jayamma (supra), the married daughters cannot be treated as coparceners in terms of Sections 6(A) and 6(C) cannot be entertained in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case Ganduri Koteshwaramma (supra) and the law laid down by the Full Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma as well as the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Danamma's case.
Karnataka High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Act vs Vivekananda Virupaksha on 5 May, 2026

The daughter (P2) is not entitled because of the non-applicability of the Act, 1956, P2 would also not be entitled under the substituted section 6 of the Act, 1956 nor by virtue of Vineeta Sharma (supra). The subsequent purchasers from the daughter (Plantiff No.2) or her legal heirs would also not be entitled and their applications would not be maintainable for modification of the preliminary decree.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 57 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Act vs Vivekananda Virupaksha on 5 May, 2026

The daughter (P2) is not entitled because of the non-applicability of the Act, 1956, P2 would also not be entitled under the substituted section 6 of the Act, 1956 nor by virtue of Vineeta Sharma (supra). The subsequent purchasers from the daughter (Plantiff No.2) or her legal heirs would also not be entitled and their applications would not be maintainable for modification of the preliminary decree.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 57 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shanthi vs Varudhappa Gounder (Died) on 8 July, 2025

28. During argument, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff had submitted arguments claiming that the State Act cannot prevail over the Central Act. The Central Act had come into force in 2004 which is applicable throughout the country. When that be the case, the first Defendant and the second Defendant cannot deny the claim of the Plaintiff. Still, the learned Additional District Judge misdirected himself and accepted the claim of the first Defendant that the properties in Item Nos. 2 to 4 were purchased out of the income derived from cultivating agricultural lands taken on lease, without any proof. Therefore, the Judgment of the 24/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 06:46:45 pm ) A.S.No.77 of 2015 learned Additional District Judge, Namakkal in O.S.No.172 of 2012 dated 31.10.2014 is erroneous in the light of Hindu Succession Act as amended in 2005 and as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in in the case of Vineetha Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma reported in (2020) 9 SCC
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S S Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next