Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 38 (0.45 seconds)
Dr Anirudh V vs Annaiah N M on 6 April, 2026 cites

Uttam vs Saubhag Singh & Ors on 2 March, 2016

The oral evidence of DW2, which is supported by the documents Ex.D70 to 84 is sufficient to hold that under the partition of the year 1952 as per Ex.D1, the defendant No.1 got ancestral properties as his share. The plaintiff in his plaint itself stated that his great grand father Munivenktappa was successful businessman during his life time and his grand father defendant No.1 N.M.Annaiah succeeded the properties of Munivenkatappa and developed the ancestral properties inherited from Munivenkatappa by virtue of the partition 115 O.S.No. 1990/2018 deed dated 31.032.1952 and thereafter the defendant No.1 acquired several immovable properties from nucleus joint family income. When there is a specific pleadings on the side of the plaintiff as well as defendants No.1 to 3 that the defendant No.1 N.M.Annaiah who had inherited the properties from his father Munivenkatappa and he had developed the properties and business and acquired immovable properties from the nucleus of joint family income, no other proof is required to say that the defendant No.1 after 1952 partition started to purchase the properties out of ancestral properties income and also from by developing the business inherited from his father Munivenkatappa. I have gone through the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiff reported in 2016 4 SCC PG 68 (UTTAM VS. SAUBHAG SINGH AND OTHERS) and judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2009 (2) KCCR 1206 (DB) (SRI.K.MADHAVA RAJA NAYAK VS. SRI. K. SRIDHARA NAYAK AND OTHERS). There is no dispute regarding principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court in these cited decisions. But in the present suit the plaintiff as well as defendants No.1 to 3 116 O.S.No. 1990/2018 themselves admitted in the pleadings that the defendant No.1 who had succeeded the ancestral properties from his father's development including business development and purchased the immovable property from nucleus of joint family income, in his name and in the name of his wife defendant No.2, in the name of defendant No.4, no other proof is required. More than that when we compared the documents Ex.D70 to D84 with Ex.D1 partition deed, one thing is very clear that the defendant No.1 inherited the ancestral properties which were fallen to the share of his father under the registered partition deed dated 27.03.1945. The plaintiff No.1, defendant No.5, defendants No.6 & 7 who are the grand children of defendant No.1 are the third generation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 144 - R F Nariman - Full Document

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

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment in para 15 by referring earlier judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in ROHIT CHAUHAN VS. SURINDER SINGH AND OTHERS, it is held that " "11. ....In our opinion coparcenary property means the property which consists of ancestral property and a coparcener 150 O.S.No. 1990/2018 would mean a person who shares equally with others in inheritance in the estate of common ancestor. Coparcenary is a narrower body than the joint Hindu family and before the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, only male members of the family used to acquire by birth an interest in the coparcenary property. A coparcener has no definite share in the coparcenary property but he has an undivided interest in it and one has to bear in mind that it enlarges by deaths and diminishes by births in the family. It is not static. We are further of the opinion that so long, on partition an ancestral property remains in the hand of a single person, it has to be treated as a separate property and such a person shall be entitled to dispose of the coparcenary property treating it to be his separate property but if a son is subsequently born, the alienation made before the birth cannot be questioned. But, the moment a son is born, the property becomes a coparcenary property and the son would acquire interest in that and become a coparcener". If this principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court applies to the present case, admittedly, the plaintiff No.2 born on 151 O.S.No. 1990/2018 15.11.1952 i.e. soon after partition deed dated 31.03.1952. The defendant No.4 born on 09.02.1954. Prior to birth of plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.4 the defendant has not alienated any of the properties fallen to his share. The plaintiff No.1 himself in the plaint stated that the defendant No.1 who had inherited the property from his father developed the same and purchased the properties in his name, in the name of his wife, defendant No.2 and in the name of defendant No.4 out of joint family nucleus. Such pleadings of the plaintiff No.2 made in para III (1) and (2) are admitted by the defendant No.1 to 3 in their written statement. Subsequently, the defendant No.3 transposed himself as plaintiff No.2. But the fact remains, prior to birth of plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.4, the defendant No.1 has not alienated any of the properties fallen to his share in the partition deed dated 31.03.1952 becomes coparcenary properties consisting of defendant No.1, plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.4. After the birth of plaintiff No.1, defendants No.5 to 7 they have also become coparceners as they are of the third generations from N.A.Munivenkatappa.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 110 - C K Prasad - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next