Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 116 (2.66 seconds)The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Prakash vs Phulavati . on 16 October, 2015
In view of the aforesaid discussion and answer, we overrule the
views to the contrary expressed in Prakash v. Phulavati and
Mangammal v. T.B. Raju & Ors. The opinion expressed in Danamma @
Suman Surpur & Anr. v. Amar is partly overruled to the extent it is
121
contrary to this decision. Let the matters be placed before appropriate
Bench for decision on merits.
Section 6 in The Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
The Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Registration Act, 1908
Anar Devi And Ors vs Parmeshwari Devi And Ors on 18 September, 2006
77. In Danamma, a Division Bench of this Court dealt with the
interpretation of amended provisions of section 6. The decision in
77
Anar Devi v. Parmeshwari Devi (supra) was relied upon.
Ganduri Koteshwaramma & Anr vs Chakiri Yanadi & Anr on 12 October, 2011
In Ganduri Koteshwaramma & Anr. v. Chakiri Yanadi & Anr.,
(supra), this Court considered the amendment made in section 6 of
the Hindu Succession Act in 2005 and held that the right of a
daughter in coparcenary property is not lost bypassing of a
preliminary decree for partition before stipulated date i.e., 20 th
December, 2004. A partition suit does not stand disposed of bypassing
a preliminary decree.
Danamma @ Suman Surpur vs Amar on 1 February, 2018
In view of the aforesaid discussion and answer, we overrule the
views to the contrary expressed in Prakash v. Phulavati and
Mangammal v. T.B. Raju & Ors. The opinion expressed in Danamma @
Suman Surpur & Anr. v. Amar is partly overruled to the extent it is
121
contrary to this decision. Let the matters be placed before appropriate
Bench for decision on merits.