Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.40 seconds)
Chenniappan vs Nanjammal on 30 June, 2025 cites

Shasidhar & Ors vs Ashwini Uma Mathod & Anr on 13 January, 2015

Even when the notice dated 17.11.2006 was sent by the Plaintiff prior to the filing of the Suit, it was not replied by the Defendants. As the Defendants wanted to suppress that after the 2005 amendment, wherein the Plaintiff as a Hindu woman is entitled to claim share in her father's property. The Defendant had without knowledge of the Plaintiff created partition among themselves which are self-serving documents which will not bind the Plaintiff. The ruling cited by the learned Counsel for the Appellants in (i) S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath reported in 1994 (1) SCC 1; (ii) Shasidhar Vs. Ashwini Uma Mathad reported in 42/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 04:38:41 pm ) A.S.No.453 of 2023 2015 (2) MWN 556; (iii) P.Hema Malini Vs. Palanimalai reported in 2022 (5) CTC 639 (DB) and (iv) Ibramsa Rowther Vs. Sheik Meerasa reported in AIR 1972 MAD 467 will not help the case of the Defendants herein.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 84 - A M Sapre - Full Document

S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath on 27 October, 1993

Even when the notice dated 17.11.2006 was sent by the Plaintiff prior to the filing of the Suit, it was not replied by the Defendants. As the Defendants wanted to suppress that after the 2005 amendment, wherein the Plaintiff as a Hindu woman is entitled to claim share in her father's property. The Defendant had without knowledge of the Plaintiff created partition among themselves which are self-serving documents which will not bind the Plaintiff. The ruling cited by the learned Counsel for the Appellants in (i) S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath reported in 1994 (1) SCC 1; (ii) Shasidhar Vs. Ashwini Uma Mathad reported in 42/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 04:38:41 pm ) A.S.No.453 of 2023 2015 (2) MWN 556; (iii) P.Hema Malini Vs. Palanimalai reported in 2022 (5) CTC 639 (DB) and (iv) Ibramsa Rowther Vs. Sheik Meerasa reported in AIR 1972 MAD 467 will not help the case of the Defendants herein.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 979 - K Singh - Full Document

Radhamoni Debi vs The Collector Of Khulna And Ors. on 24 March, 1900

(See Radhamoni Debi V. Collector of Khulna 29/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 04:38:41 pm ) A.S.No.453 of 2023 MANU/PR/0007/1900: (1900) LR 27 IA 136, 140]). But it is well- settled that in order to establish adverse possession of one co-heir as against another it is not enough to show that one out of them is in sole possession and enjoyment of the profits of the properties. Ouster of the non-possessing co-heir by the co-heir in possession who claims his possession to be adverse, should be made out. The possession of one co-hair is considered, in law, as possession of all the co-heirs. When one co-heir is found to be in possession of the properties it is presumed to be on the basis of joint title the co-heir in possession cannot render his possession adverse to the other co- heir not in possession merely by any secret hostile animus on his own part in derogation of the other co-heir's title.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 107 - Full Document

Vidya Devi @ Vidya Vati (Dead)By L.Rs vs Prem Prakash & Ors on 10 May, 1995

This Court in Vidya Devi V. Prem Prakash (7) held that: 28. Ouster does not mean actual driving out of the co-sharer from the property. It will, however, not be complete unless it is coupled with all other ingredients requiredto constitute adverse possession. Broadly speaking, three elements are necessary for establishing the plea of ouster in the case of co-owner.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 89 - N Venkatachala - Full Document

Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma on 11 August, 2020

In the reported ruling in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma reported in 2020 (9) SCC 1, the first Defendant's claim that the Suit is hit by non-joiner of party as the suit property had been partitioned in the year 1979 between the sons of the Defendant through his first and second wife. Pending suit, the Defendant died. Therefore, all the legal heirs of the sole Defendant were impleaded by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the question of non-joinder will not arise. After impleadment, 45/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 04:38:41 pm ) A.S.No.453 of 2023 each of them filed written statement. In all the written statements, the claim of the partition is stated but the D.W-1 to D.W-3 had in their cross- examination admitted that the Plaintiff was not a party to the partition deed. The Plaintiff was not informed of the partition. Therefore, the observation by the learned trial Judge granting preliminary decree on the ground that she was not a party to the partition and that she was not informed of the partition by the Defendants holds good. The Plaintiff had sought a partition of her father's self-acquired property and not the ancestral coparcenery property. Therefore, the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Appellants will not hold good to the facts of this case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 127 - Cited by 245 - A Mishra - Full Document
1   2 Next