Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.52 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Shyam Narayan Prasad vs Krishna Prasad on 2 July, 2018
35. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on Shyam
Narayan Prasad vs. Krishna Prasad and Ors., (2018) 7 SCC 646, but said
decision proceeded on the footing that the property in question was
established to be coparcenary property. In the present case, no such
foundational fact, has been proved and the facts are distinguishable.
Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. & Ors vs Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune ... on 30 January, 2006
Ltd. vs. Vessel M.V. Fortune Express, (2006) 3
SCC 100.
Controller Of Estate Duty Madras vs Alladi Kuppuswamy on 3 May, 1977
In Controller of Estate Duty, Madras vs. Alladi Kuppuswamy,(1977) 3
SCC 385 it was explained that until partition, no coparcener can predicate a
definite share in the property, as each holds it jointly with the others. This
principle, however, applies only where a coparcenary is shown to exist.
Commissioner Of Wealth Tax. Kanpur Etc. ... vs Chander Sen Etc on 16 July, 1986
In Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Ors. vs. Chander Sen
and Ors., 1986 3 SCC 567, the Supreme Court clarified that property
inherited by a son after 1956 from his father does not automatically assume
the character of an HUF property.
Yudhishter vs Ashok Kumar on 11 December, 1986
This view was reaffirmed in Yudhishter
vs. Ashok Kumar, (1987) 1 SCC 204, wherein it was held that inheritance
under Section 8 of the Act results in the property becoming the individual
property of the heir, notwithstanding its ancestral origin.
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Saleem Bhai And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 December, 2002
14. The Appellant relied on Saleem Bhai vs. State of Maharashtra, (2003)
1 SCC 557 and Mayar (H.K.)
1