Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.49 seconds)
Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma & Ors on 15 May, 2018 cites

Prakash vs Phulavati . on 16 October, 2015

11. Counsel for the Defendants on the other hand submits that the property constitutes a `dwelling house‟. Canara Bank vacated the property on 22nd August, 2001 and on the said date, when the eviction suit was filed the family was occupying the entire property. It was further submitted that the repealing of Section 23 of the HSA came into effect only on 9th September 2005 and a daughter was not to be treated as a coparcener prior 20th December, 2004. The Defendant relies on Phulavati (Supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 59 - Cited by 270 - A K Goel - Full Document

Mangamal @ Thulasi And Anr. vs T.B.Raju And Ors. on 19 April, 2018

27. However, the above referenced decisions of the Supreme Court in Phulavati (supra), Danamma (supra) and Mangammal (supra) raise important questions of law of general public importance as to the rights of female coparceners and their rights. Though the appeal is dismissed, the Plaintiff is issued certificate of fitness to appeal under Articles 133(1)(a) and 134A of the Constitution of India to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 31 - R K Agrawal - Full Document

Danamma @ Suman Surpur vs Amar on 1 February, 2018

(emphasis supplied by us) It is pertinent to note here that recently, this Court in Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Anr. Vs. Amar & Ors, 2018 (1) Scale 657 dealt, inter-alia, with the dispute of daughter's right in the ancestral property. In the above case, father of the daughter died in 2001, yet court permitted the daughter to claim the right in ancestral property in view of the amendment in 2005.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 108 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1