Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)Dandappa Rudrappa Hampali And Others vs Renukappa Alias Revanappa And Others on 11 December, 1992
(c) Dandappa Rudrappa Hampali & Ors. vs. Renukappa
alias Revanappa and Ors, reported in AIR 1993
Karnataka 148. In para 17.2, it was held as under:-
Dev Kishan And Ors. Lrs. Of Kishan Lal vs Ram Kishan And Ors. on 9 May, 2002
37. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the decision in the case of
Sri Kishan vs. Shri Ram Kishan and Ors., 159 (2009) DLT 470.
Relevant para 9 reads as under:-
Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai And Others vs Desai Mallappa And Others on 9 February, 1961
(a) Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai & Anr. vs. Desai Mallappa
alias Mallesappa & Anr., reported as AIR (1961) SC
1268. In para-15 thereof, the Supreme Court has held:-
Section 14 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Punjab Land Revenue Rules
Parma Nand vs Sudama Ram And Ors. on 30 June, 1993
(b) Parma Nand vs. Sudama Ram, reported in AIR 1994 HP
87 wherein it was held as under:-
Santanu Kumar Das And Ors. vs Bairagi Charan Das And Ors. on 13 March, 1995
28. When a property is purchased in the name of a female member even
though there is sufficient nucleus the presumption that the said property is
joint family property does not arise. Such a presumption would be
available in the case of a male member of the family but not female
member. Reliance can be placed on the judgment passed in Santanu
Kumar Das & Ors. vs. Bairagi Charan Das & Ors., reported in AIR
1995 Orissa 300, the relevant para of which reads as under:-
Leena Mehta vs Vijaya Myne & Ors. on 9 November, 2009
34. In view of Section 3 of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act,
1988 no person can claim that property in the name of Dropadi Devi was
her/her Benami property. Reference is made to a judgment passed by this
Court in Leena Mehta vs. Vijay Myne and others, CS(OS) No.2118/2006,
decided on 9th November, 2009. There was never any coparcenary or joint
family. Coparcenary or joint family cannot be presumed. The entire
argument of the plaintiff is based on the assumption that there was a
CS(OS) No.2515/1991 Page No.30 of 33
coparcenary and that Dropadi Devi was the Manager which is wrong. Two
sons and one daughter were married by her after the death of her husband.
She was also getting pension after her husband‟s death. Thus, the plaintiff
has failed to establish his stand on this issue also.
1