Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.35 seconds)
Smt Vijayalakshmi vs Sri Dyavaiah on 13 January, 2020 cites

Uttam vs Saubhag Singh & Ors on 2 March, 2016

31. However, the dispute is because the plaintiffs contend that the suit schedule item No.1 properties are ancestral properties and they, in view of the provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act as amended by the provisions of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, would be coparceners entitled for equal shares, and the purchasers - the defendant Nos. 6 and 7 - contend that the plaintiffs cannot assert that the suit schedule item No.1 properties are ancestral properties only because the defendant No.1 is allotted these properties in a partition vide the 41 partition deed dated 13.5.1978. In fact, the defendant Nos.6 and 7 specifically assert that the children don't get any right in the suit schedule item No. 1 properties only because these properties devolved on the defendant No.1 from his father, Sri Madaiah. Insofar as the defendant Nos. 1 to 5, the defendant No.1 has filed his written statement stating that the suit schedule item No.1 properties are self acquired properties and he had informed the plaintiffs about his intention to sell the suit schedule item No.1 properties and requested the plaintiffs to join him by subscribing their signatures. But defendant No.4, one of the sons of the defendant No.1 who is examined as his Power of Attorney, has stated in his chief examination that these properties are joint family properties. Therefore, the merits of the rival claims is examined in the light of the admitted facts and circumstances 42 of the case and the discussion in Para-28 of this judgment independent of the canvass based on the exposition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uttam vs. Saubhag Singh supra.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 144 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Mahant Dhangir And Another vs Madan Mohan And Others on 28 October, 1987

29. In the light of the afore discussion, this Court while deciding on the third question of law, would have to essentially examine whether the finding by the appellate Court that the suit schedule item No.1 properties are ancestral properties is justified in law, and if this Court concludes that the appellate Court's finding in this regard is justified, then this Court will have to examine whether the appellate Court is justified in its conclusion that the sale of the suit schedule item No.1 properties is for legal necessities. Therefore, an elaborate discussion on the canvass by the learned counsel for the defendant Nos.6 and 7 based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahanta Dhangir V. Madan Mohan and others supra is not necessitated.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 188 - K J Shetty - Full Document

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

This exposition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and others supra, and in the later decisions in Sheela Devi and others v. Lal Chand and another8 and Rohit Chauhan v. Surinder 8 (2006) 8 Supreme Court Cases 581 32 Singh and others9 is not altered in the latter decision in Uttam vs. Saubhag Singh supra. Therefore, it cannot be reasonably held in the facts of this case namely that on the intestate death of Sri Madaiah leaving behind his mother, a class-I female legal heir, the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act would apply and the property/ies left behind by such male Hindu would become his self-acquired property. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs thus justified the decision of the appellate Court insofar as the finding that the suit schedule item No.1 properties are ancestral properties.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 317 - S Mukharji - Full Document
1   2 Next