Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.79 seconds)
Shekhai vs D.D.C.And Another on 12 May, 2022 cites

Jagdamba And 5 Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 7 ... on 19 October, 2020

"61. At this stage, it will be relevant to note the decision of this Court in the case of Jagdamba Singh & Ors. vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation & Ors., reported in 1984 (2) LCD Page 398 [LB] wherein the ingredients for a claim of co-tenancy and ancestral has been considered very lucidly and the relevant Paragraphs 14, 15, 22 and 23 will be apposite to resolve this controversy.
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 5 - S K Rai - Full Document

Govind Dass And Ors. vs Kuldip Singh on 28 April, 1970

Unless contrary is established, the presumption is that the members of a Hindu family are living in a state of union (see: Govind Dass Vs. Kuldip Singh AIR 1971 Delhi 151 and Bhagwan Dayal Vs. Mst. Reoti Devi AIR 1962 SC 287). If, however, one of the coparceners is admittedly living separately from other members of the family, neither it can be said that other members do not constitute a Hindu joint family nor the member living separately, who has stripped his relation with the joint family, can be said to be still a coparcener or member of joint family. Simultaneously, merely if some members are working and living at different places, though own a joint family in common, it cannot be said that they do not form a joint Hindu family. Since it is only a presumption, the strength thereof necessarily varies in every case. The presumption of union is stronger in the case of brothers than in the case of cousins and farther one goes from the founder of the family, the presumption becomes weaker and weaker.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 80 - H R Khanna - Full Document

Bhagwan Dayal vs Mst. Reoti Devi on 4 September, 1961

Unless contrary is established, the presumption is that the members of a Hindu family are living in a state of union (see: Govind Dass Vs. Kuldip Singh AIR 1971 Delhi 151 and Bhagwan Dayal Vs. Mst. Reoti Devi AIR 1962 SC 287). If, however, one of the coparceners is admittedly living separately from other members of the family, neither it can be said that other members do not constitute a Hindu joint family nor the member living separately, who has stripped his relation with the joint family, can be said to be still a coparcener or member of joint family. Simultaneously, merely if some members are working and living at different places, though own a joint family in common, it cannot be said that they do not form a joint Hindu family. Since it is only a presumption, the strength thereof necessarily varies in every case. The presumption of union is stronger in the case of brothers than in the case of cousins and farther one goes from the founder of the family, the presumption becomes weaker and weaker.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 109 - Full Document

Sher Singh & Ors vs Gamdoor Singh on 13 December, 1996

In Sher Singh Vs. Gamdoor Singh 1997 (2) HLR 81 (SC), the Court said that once existence of a joint family is not in dispute, necessarily the property held by family assumed the character of a coparcenary property and every member of family would be entitled, by birth, to a share in coparcenary property, unless any one of the coparcener pleads, by separate pleadings and proves, that some of the properties or all the properties are his self-acquired properties and cannot be blended in coparcenary property. Merely because the family is joint, there is no presumption of joint property. A Hindu, even if he be joint may possess separate property. Such property belongs exclusively to him. Neither member of the coparcenary, nor his male issue, acquires any interest in it by birth. On his death (intestate), it passes by succession to his heirs and not by survivorship to the surviving coparcener. The existence of joint family does not raise presumption that it owns properties jointly. But once joint family nucleus is either proved or admitted so as to draw inference that such property could have been acquired out of joint family funds, the burden shifts to the party alleging self acquisition, to establish affirmatively, that such property was acquired without aid of joint family. Initial burden always lies upon the party asserting that any item of property is joint family property.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

Randhi Appalaswami vs Randhi Suryanarayanamurti on 2 July, 1947

In Appalaswami Vs. Suryanarayanamurti and Ors., AIR 1947 PC 189, it was held that Hindu law is very clear. Proof of existence of a joint family does not lead to the presumption that property held by any member of family is joint. The burden rests upon one who asserts that an item of property is joint, to establish that fact. But where it is established that the family possessed some joint property which, from its nature and relative value, may have formed the nucleus, from which property in question may have been acquired, the burden shifts to the party alleging self-acquisition, to establish affirmatively that the property was acquired without the aid of joint family property/fund.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 80 - Full Document

Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango vs Narayan Devji Kango And Others on 23 March, 1954

39. Again in Srinivas Krishnarao Kango Vs. Narayan Devji Kango AIR 1954 SC 379, it was held that proof of existence of a joint family does not lead to the presumption that property held by any member of family is joint. The burden rests upon anyone asserting that any item of property is joint to establish the fact. But where it is established that the family possessed some joint property which form its nature and relative value, may have formed the nucleus, from which property in question may have been acquired, the burden shifts to the party alleging self-acquisition to establish affirmatively that the property was acquired without the aid of joint family property.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 240 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next