Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.28 seconds)

Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma & Ors on 15 May, 2018

12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent, Mrs. D.Sathya, would submit that, even in the sale deed in which the appellant purchased the property, it is totally silent as to title of the suit property. She would state that there was no mention of any oral partition in 8/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.163 of 2018 Exhibit A2 sale deed, under which the appellant purchased the suit property. She would also refer to the Advocate Commissioner’s report and state that subsequent to partition in the year 1940, there has been no partition in the family and placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma and others reported in 2020 9 SCC 1, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that evidentiary value of an oral partition is weak and the same ought to be proved by strong evidence.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 353 - P M Singh - Full Document
1