Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.40 seconds)
Dr Anirudh V vs Annaiah N M on 6 April, 2026 cites

Dorairaj vs Doraisamy (Dead) And Ors. on 24 March, 2022

31. The learned counsel for the defendants No.4, 6 & 7 relied on the recent judgment of Hon'ble Superme Court decided on 05.02.2026 in CIVIL APPEAL No.2129-2130 / 2012 DECIDED ON 05.02.2026 (DORAIRAJ VS. DORAISAMY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERs) and submitted that facts of this suit and cited decisions are similar and in this judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the judgment of Hon'ble High Court and dismissed the Civil appeal.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Neelam Gupta vs Rajendra Kumar Gupta on 26 April, 2023

He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIVIL APPEAL No.3159 - 3160 /2019 (NEELAM GUPTA VS. RAJENDRA KUMAR). He also relied on same judgment relied by the learned counsel for the defendant No.5 reported in AIR AIR 1954 SC 379 (SRINIVASA KRISHNA 111 O.S.No. 1990/2018 RAO KANGO VS.NARAYAN DEVJI KANGO) and submitted that since there is a property allotted to the defendant No.1 under the partition of the year 1952 and these properties and business which he continued was enable him to acquire the properties it shall be presumed that all the properties which purchased by the defendant No.1 in his name in the name of his wife, defendant No.2, in the name of plaintiff No.2 should be considered as joint family properties.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Angadi Chandranna vs Shankar on 17 November, 2022

29. He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIVIL APPEAL No.5401/2025 (ANGADI CHANDRANNA VS. SHANKAR & OTHERS), wherein in para 17 of the judgment it is held that, it cannot be disputed that the properties divided among Defendant No.1 and his brothers through partition deed dated 09.05.1986, are joint family properties. However, as per 107 O.S.No. 1990/2018 Hindu law, after partition, each party gets a separate and distinct share and this share becomes their self-acquired property and they have absolute rights over it and they can sell, transfer, or bequeath it as they wish. Accordingly, the properties bequeathed through partition, become the self-acquired properties of the respective sharers. By relying on these citations, the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the properties which fallen to the share of defendant No.1 under the partition deed dated 31.05.1952 becomes separate / self acquired properties and the plaintiffs, defendants No.2 to 7 are not having any share in the properties fallen to the share of defendant No.1. He further argued that all the acquisition made by the defendant No.1 subsequent to the partition of the year 1952 is his self acquired property and separate property.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1