Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.21 seconds)Section 6 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Bhanwar Singh vs Puran & Ors on 12 February, 2008
In the case of "Bhanwar Singh Vs. Puran Singh and Others"
Section 19 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
M.Yogendra & Ors vs Leelamma N. & Ors on 29 July, 2009
For the same reasons, the judgment in the
case of "M. Yogendra and Others Vs. Leelamma N. and Others" (supra)
would not be applicable.
Rohit Chauhan vs Surinder Singh & Ors on 15 July, 2013
"20. Some other judgments were cited before us for
the proposition that joint family property continues
as such even with a sole surviving coparcener, and
if a son is born to such coparcener thereafter, the
joint family property continues as such, there being
no hiatus merely by virtue of the fact there is a sole
surviving coparcener. Dharma Shamrao Agalawe v.
Pandurang Miragu Agalawe (1988) 2 SCC 126,
Sheela Devi v. Lal Chand, (2006) 8 SCC 581, and
Rohit Chauhan v. Surinder Singh (2013) 9 SCC 419,
were cited for this purpose. None of these judgments
would take the appellant any further in view of the
fact that in none of them is there any consideration
of the effect of sections 4, 8 and 19 of the Hindu
Succession Act. The law, therefore, insofar as it
applies to joint family property governed by the
Mitakshara School, prior to the amendment of 2005,
could therefore be summarized as follows:-
Section 4 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Punjab Courts Act, 1918
M.Arumugam vs Ammaniammal And Ors. on 8 January, 2020
In support of his
contentions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "M. Arumugam Vs. Ammaniammal
and Others", (2020) 11 SCC 103 and "Uttam Vs. Saubhag Singh and
Others", (2016) 4 SCC 68 as also the judgment passed by this Court in the
case of "Kanha Vs. Mange Ram and Others", 2020 SCC Online P and H
5176.