Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.29 seconds)The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Mudakappa vs Rudrappa And Others on 28 September, 1993
In this case, she relied on the
judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ishwaragouda
and Others vs. Mallikarjun Gowda and Others2 and
Mudakappa vs. Rudrappa and Others3. Learned
counsel for appellant would further submit that plaintiff
or defendant No.2 never raised objection in granting
occupancy rights to defendant No.1. About 40 years
after such grant, the plaintiff has filed suit for partition
which is not maintainable in law. Learned counsel for
appellant further relies upon the judgment of Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Nimbavva and
others V/s. Channaveerayya and Others4, wherein
Section 2(12) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961
was examined and held as follows:
Section 24 in Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Ishwaragouda & Ors vs Mallikarjun Gowda & Ors on 7 November, 2008
In this case, she relied on the
judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ishwaragouda
and Others vs. Mallikarjun Gowda and Others2 and
Mudakappa vs. Rudrappa and Others3. Learned
counsel for appellant would further submit that plaintiff
or defendant No.2 never raised objection in granting
occupancy rights to defendant No.1. About 40 years
after such grant, the plaintiff has filed suit for partition
which is not maintainable in law. Learned counsel for
appellant further relies upon the judgment of Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Nimbavva and
others V/s. Channaveerayya and Others4, wherein
Section 2(12) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961
was examined and held as follows:
Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma & Ors on 15 May, 2018
Insofar as the recent judgment is by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta
Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and others, reported
in AIR 2020 SC 3717. Insofar as the applicability
of the said judgment is concerned, which is to be
noted that when once statute is interpreted as in
the case of 'Vineeta Sharma' it is entitled to all
enactment in other words meaning of a particular
section is interpreted how to be read and
interpreted. Learned counsel for plaintiff Sri.Dinesh
M.Kulkarni, would draw our attention to the
following decision in the case of Sri Arvind S/o.
Santosh Hazari vs Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) By Lrs on 8 February, 2001
15. Having heard the arguments of both sides and verifying
the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court relied on by the
learned counsel for appellant in Santosh Hazari
(supra), the second appeal shall not be heard without
framing substantial question of law. However, when no
substantial question of law would arose in the second
appeal, then the substantial question of law need not
be framed.
Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma on 11 August, 2020
In Vineeta Sharma's case cited supra, the rights of
daughters and sons of Hindu are discussed in detail and
said judgment of Vineeta Sharma's case is considered
by coordinate Bench of this Court in RFA
No.100037/2018 decided on 14.10.2024 in paragraph
Nos.11, 12 and 13 which reads as below: