Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.36 seconds)
Sukruti Dugal vs Jahnavi Dugal & Ors on 23 September, 2019 cites

Smt. Suraj Kumari vs District Judge, Mirzapur And Others on 17 October, 1990

"9. In the present case, the right was claimed on the strength of an alleged Will purported to be executed by Manmotha Kumar and that too in respect of the two properties out of several of which are accepted by the plaintiffs, seeking to restrain the defendants from proceeding against the third parties with whom no relation or interest of the plaintiff has been established. The alleged Will is to take effect after the demise of the testator, even if the Will was purported to have been executed before the compromise. The persons claiming through the alleged Will purported to be executed by the testator are claiming through the testator, party to the compromise. Therefore, plaintiffs cannot claim to be a stranger. Section 11 CPC restricts re-opening of the case in between the parties or between the parties claiming through the parties to the suit. Therefore, nothing prevented the plaintiffs to take steps within the forum as provided in CPC within the time. However, absence of knowledge having been pleaded, it was open to the plaintiffs to establish their right taking aid of the provisions contained in the Limitation Act. The decision in Suraj Kumari (supra) has no manner of application in the present case, inasmuch as in the said case, it was held that a person coming to the Court with unclean hands is not entitled to any relief. It does not help Mr. Bhattacharyya inasmuch as in the said decision, it was held that Order 23 Rule 3A is not applicable to a stranger to challenge the compromise decree. Therefore, the suit by a stranger to set aside a compromise decree on the ground that compromise was not lawful was held to be CS(OS) 649/2018 Page 10 of 21 maintainable. In the present case, we have already observed that the plaintiff was not a stranger to the compromise decree since the plaintiffs were claiming through Manmotha Kumar Ghosh who was a party to the compromise.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Yudhishter vs Ashok Kumar on 11 December, 1986

"As per the ratio of the Supreme Court in the case of Yudhishter (supra) after passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the position which traditionally existed with respect to an automatic right of a person in properties inherited by his paternal predecessors-in-interest from the latter's paternal ancestors upto three degrees above, has come to an end. Under the traditional Hindu Law whenever a male ancestor inherited any property from any of his paternal ancestors upto three degrees above him, then his male legal heirs upto three degrees below him had a right in that property equal to that of the person who inherited the same. Putting it in other words when a person 'A' inherited property from his father or grandfather or great grandfather then the property in his hand was not to be treated as a self- acquired property but was to be treated as an HUF property in which his son, grandson and great grandson had a right equal to 'A'. After passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, this position has undergone a change and if a person after 1956 inherits a property from his paternal ancestors, the said property is not an HUF property in his hands and the property is to be taken as a self-acquired property of the person who inherits the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 210 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Commissioner Of Wealth Tax. Kanpur Etc. ... vs Chander Sen Etc on 16 July, 1986

"I would like to further note that it is hot enough to aver a mantra, so to say, in the plaint simply that a joint Hindu family or HUF exists. Detailed facts as required by Order VI Rule 4 CPC as to when and how the HUF properties have become HUF properties must be clearly and categorically averred. Such averments have to be made by factual references qua each property claimed to be an HUF property as to how the same is an HUF property, and, in law generally bringing in any and every property as HUF property is incorrect as there is known tendency of litigants to include unnecessarily many properties as HUF properties, and which is done for less than honest motives. Whereas prior to passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 there was a presumption as to the existence of an HUF and its properties, but after passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in view of the ratios of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Chander Sen (supra) and Yudhishter CS(OS) 649/2018 Page 17 of 21 (supra) there is no such presumption that inheritance of ancestral property creates an HUF, and therefore, in such a post 1956scenario a mere ipse dixit statement in the plaint that an HUF and its properties exist is not a sufficient compliance of the legal requirement of creation or existence of HUF properties inasmuch as it is necessary for existence of an HUF and its properties that it must be specifically stated that as to whether the HUF came into existence before 1956 or after 1956 and if so how and in what manner giving all requisite factual details. It is only in such circumstances where specific facts are mentioned to clearly plead a cause of action of existence of an HUF and its properties, can a suit then be filed and maintained by a person claiming to be a coparcener for partition of the HUF properties..."
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 317 - S Mukharji - Full Document
1   2 Next