Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.83 seconds)
Veena Verma vs Snigdha Sinha on 3 May, 2024 cites

Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma on 11 August, 2020

14. Apportionment of share has not been made as per Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act (2006 Amendment) which accords the status of coparcener to a daughter in the Joint Family property with right to equal share. Onkar Prasad Verma had two daughters and one son from second wife Veena Verma (defendant no. 1). Daughters of Smt Veena Verma namely, Ashu Verma and Archana Verma have not been allocated their due share although they constituted the coparcenary at the time of the death of her father. Reliance is placed on Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1 ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
Supreme Court of India Cites 127 - Cited by 245 - A Mishra - Full Document

Krishna Kumar Birla vs Rajendra Singh Lodha & Ors on 31 March, 2008

22. At the outset it may be noted that a probate court is limited to determination that the will executed by the testator was his last will. Whether he had right and title over the subject matter of the will is beyond the range of its consideration. Role of probate Court is limited to examining whether the instrument propounded is the last will of the deceased or not, and whether it is the product of the free and sound disposing mind. Law is settled that probate Court is not required to look into the title of the property sought to be bequeathed by the testator. Probate Court does not decide any question of title of the property itself. Learned Court below was in error to have entered into the issue of title of the property and dismiss it on that ground. ( Refer to the decision of Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha, (2008) 4 SCC 300).
Supreme Court of India Cites 82 - Cited by 206 - Full Document

Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan vs Kattukandi Edathil Valsan on 13 June, 2022

42. Under the circumstance, plaintiff's suit is decreed on contest and Smt. Veena Verma, Ashish Verma, Ashu Verma, Archana Verma and Dr Krishna Kumar Verma, Ram Kumar Verma and Dr Arun Kumar Verma each will get 1/7th share in item no.1 and 2 of the Schedule property. Both the first appeals being F.A 103 of 2011 and F.A.188 of 2008, are disposed of in terms of the modification of the preliminary decree as stated above. Learned trial Court is directed to draw final decree and proceed as per the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan and another v. Kattukand Edathil Valson and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 737 and Shub Karan Bubna v. Sita Saran Bubna and others, (2009) 9 SCC 689.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 101 - S A Nazeer - Full Document

Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub Karan Prasad Bub vs Sita Saran Bubna & Ors on 21 August, 2009

42. Under the circumstance, plaintiff's suit is decreed on contest and Smt. Veena Verma, Ashish Verma, Ashu Verma, Archana Verma and Dr Krishna Kumar Verma, Ram Kumar Verma and Dr Arun Kumar Verma each will get 1/7th share in item no.1 and 2 of the Schedule property. Both the first appeals being F.A 103 of 2011 and F.A.188 of 2008, are disposed of in terms of the modification of the preliminary decree as stated above. Learned trial Court is directed to draw final decree and proceed as per the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan and another v. Kattukand Edathil Valson and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 737 and Shub Karan Bubna v. Sita Saran Bubna and others, (2009) 9 SCC 689.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 191 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1