Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.75 seconds)
V.G.Ramasamy vs V.G.Sreenivasan on 5 December, 2018 cites

K. Raghunandan & Ors vs Ali Hussain Sabir & Ors on 14 May, 2008

In Phool Patti and another Vs. Ram Singh (dead) through Legal Representatives and another, (supra), the matter was referred to a larger Bench as there is a conflict between the decisions Bhoop Singh Vs. Ram Singh Major and others (supra) and K. Raghunathan vs. Ali Hussain Sabir and others (supra). The larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is no conflict between those two decisions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 48 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Bhoop Singh vs Ram Singh Major & Ors on 11 September, 1995

In Phool Patti and another Vs. Ram Singh (dead) through Legal Representatives and another, (supra), the matter was referred to a larger Bench as there is a conflict between the decisions Bhoop Singh Vs. Ram Singh Major and others (supra) and K. Raghunathan vs. Ali Hussain Sabir and others (supra). The larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is no conflict between those two decisions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 234 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

S.V. Muthu And Ors. vs Veerammal And Anr. on 19 August, 1980

In S.V.Muthu and others Vs. Veerammal and others, (supra), the defendants contested the partition suit, but the trial court found that the defendants also entitled to get share in the amount which was deposited in the bank. The appeal filed by the defendants also dismissed. Subsequently, the bank had deposited the amount before the court and at that time, the defendants had filed an application to issue a cheque for the amount as per the preliminary decree. The trial court had dismissed the said application stating that they did not pay the court fees to http://www.judis.nic.in 25 allot their shares, against which the defendants have filed Civil Revision Petition before this court. This court has observed that since the defendants have not paid court fees, they cannot claim share. But in this case, the facts are totally different. In this case, both the parties entered compromise and based on the said compromise, the final decree was passed straightaway and hence, the question of paying court fees by the defendants does not arise. So, the findings of the first appellate court that since the defendants have not paid court fees, the right or title not passed on them through the said compromise decree, cannot be accepted. Therefore, these second appeals are liable to be dismissed and the cross objection has to be allowed and the judgments and decrees passed by the trial court have to be restored. Accordingly, these points are answered.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Danamma @ Suman Surpur vs Amar on 1 February, 2018

In Danamma @ Suman Surpur and another vs. Amar and others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the daughters are entitled to get share in the joint family co-parcenery property as co- parceners even if they were born prior to the enactment of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005). As per sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 on and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, in a Joint Hindu Family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall by birth become a coparcener and have the same rights in the coparcenery property as she would have had if she had been a son. Sub-Section (5) of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act says that nothing contained in that Section shall apply to a Partition, which has been effected before the 20th day of December, 2004. The Explanation attached to the said Section says that for the purposes of that section “Partition” means any partition made by execution of Deed of Partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or Partition effected by a Decree of a Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 108 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1   2 Next