Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.17 seconds)

Daya Narain Khatri & Ors. vs Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta & Anr. on 28 July, 1998

Further, in Daya Narain Khatri & Ors. vs. Suresh Kumar Gupta & Anr. 1999 (1) RAJ 476 (Del), it was held that letters of administration is not required in relation to any part of a property of a Hindu, who has died intestate, in terms of Section 212(1) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. It is concluded that the undertaking given by petitioner in her petition and evidence will be complied, for the benefit and welfare of minor.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - S N Kapoor - Full Document

Jagjeet Kaur vs State on 25 February, 2014

5. (Final submissions) - At the stage of final hearing, petitioner's Counsel Shri R.K. Sachdeva, Advocate made final submissions, based on pleading and evidence that the circumstances are self explanatory as to how the need has arisen for the petitioner to file petition for permission to sell the undivided half share of minor in the estate; the sale is being proposed, as it is for the welfare of minor, who is Class­I legal heir of deceased and petitioner is also natural mother of minor. She has no adverse interest towards the ward, besides there is no opposition to the petition from any other quarter. The petitioner relies upon Jagjeet Kaur vs. State 2014 (208) DLT 474, wherein appellant/petitioner was granted GP No. 01/2016 Page 6 of 10 Koyel Mathur vs. State permission to sell share of the minors located in back portion of the first floor of the property, pursuant to the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - V J Mehta - Full Document
1