Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.22 seconds)

Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma on 11 August, 2020

15. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is necessary to place on record that, initially, the Trial Court passed a preliminary decree holding that the plaintiffs would be entitled to 1/8th share each in the suit schedule property. However, during the pendency of the final decree proceedings, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma (supra), the preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by this Court was modified by declaring that the plaintiff No.1, plaintiff No.2, defendant No.1, and defendants No.2 to 6 (jointly) would be entitled to 1/4th share each in the suit schedule property. It is also an undisputed fact that the modified preliminary decree declaring that all the aforesaid parties will be entitled to 1/4th share in the suit schedule property has attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the parties.
Supreme Court of India Cites 127 - Cited by 245 - A Mishra - Full Document

Parappa And Ors. vs Bhimappa And Anr. on 8 February, 2008

17) He relied on another decision reported in ILR 2008 KAR 1840 between Parappa and others Vs. Bhimappa and another. Wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held that once Court commissioner submits report, the same shall be evidence in that case and that forms part of record and it is not necessary to mark the same as exhibit and examine the commissioner. However, if any party files objections challenging the correctness of said report and if they prays the Court to permit them to examine the commissioner, the Court may permit them to examine him before the Court. But herein this case, the respondents have not sought for any such prayer to permit them to cross-examine the Court commissioner and even they not made out any good grounds to reject the commissioner's report.
Karnataka High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 31 - N Kumar - Full Document
1   2 Next