Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.81 seconds)
Shri Narender Nath vs Smt Krishna Gupta And Ors on 6 July, 2017 cites

Rohit Chauhan vs Surinder Singh & Ors on 15 July, 2013

"20. Some other judgments were cited before us for the proposition that joint family property continues as such even with a sole surviving coparcener, and if a son is born to such coparcener thereafter, the joint family property continues as such, there being no hiatus merely by virtue of the fact there is a sole surviving coparcener. Dharma Shamrao Agalawe v. Pandurang Miragu Agalawe (1988) 2 SCC 126, Sheela Devi v. Lal Chand, (2006) 8 SCC 581, and Rohit Chauhan v. Surinder Singh (2013) 9 SCC 419, were cited for this purpose.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 110 - C K Prasad - Full Document

Prakash vs Phulavati . on 16 October, 2015

6. The appellant's contention is that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prakash & Ors. vs. Phulavati & Ors., (2016) 2 SCC 36, FAO(OS) 217/2013 Page 2 opines and holds that the aforesaid amendment is not retrospective and would not apply. Father of the respondent nos.1 and 2 i.e. the plaintiffs and the coparcener had expired on 24th August, 1981, which is before the aforesaid amendment. To this extent, the plea of the appellant may be correct. Equally the claim and cause of action pleaded in the plaint, is not restricted to the amendment vide Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005. Relevant in this regard would be averments made in paragraph 13 of the plaint, which read as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 59 - Cited by 270 - A K Goel - Full Document
1   2 Next