Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
14 judgments · newest first · showing 1–14
The appellant, a daughter of a co-parcener, sought to amend a 2003 preliminary decree in a partition suit to claim a one‑third share under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The trial court dismissed her application, the High Court set aside that dismissal, but the respondent obtained a …
The appellants, who are the legal heirs of Dhaiya, a Scheduled Tribe woman, filed a suit for partition of land that belonged to their maternal grandfather, claiming that their mother was entitled to an equal share. The trial court and the High Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs …
The appeal concerned the inheritance rights of children born of void or voidable Hindu marriages who are legitimated under Section 16(1) or 16(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The central issue was whether such children are entitled to a share in the ancestral or coparcenary property of their …
The case involved a partition suit concerning the ancestral and self‑acquired properties of the late Kumar Sahoo, claimed by his daughter Charulata Sahu and contested by the heirs of his son Prafulla Sahoo. The trial court issued a preliminary decree allocating a one‑sixth share to the daughter in …
The appellants, the widow and daughter of Ishwar Singh, challenged the validity of Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, claiming it violated Articles 14, 15, 21 and was repugnant to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 after the latter's Section 4(2) was deleted by the 2005 amendment. The …
The Supreme Court examined the interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. It held that the amendment confers coparcenary status on daughters—whether born before or after the amendment—on and from 9 September 2005, giving …
The case concerned a perpetual leasehold Nazul plot in Allahabad that had been transferred to the Maharaja of Maihar and later bequeathed by the Maharaja to his second wife’s son. The appellant purchased the plot from the elder son, while the respondents claimed title as members of the joint Hindu …
Gurulingappa Savadi died in 2001 leaving a widow, two sons and two daughters (the appellants). A partition suit was filed in 2002 by one son, Amar, seeking a share of the joint family property. The trial court (decree 2007) and the Karnataka High Court denied the daughters any share, holding they …
The Supreme Court examined whether the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (sections 6(1), 6(3), 6(5)) operates retrospectively. The appellant‑appellants argued that the amendment should not apply to a daughter whose father, a coparcener, died before the Act’s commencement, contending that the …
The plaintiff Rohit Chauhan sued to declare that his father's sale and release deeds alienating 104 kanals of land were void, arguing that the land was ancestral coparcenary property. The father, Guiab Singh, had received the land in a partition of his father's estate and later, after Rohit's birth …
A suit for partition of a Mitakshara coparcenary property was filed by a son (respondent No.1) against his father, brother and two sisters (the appellants). The trial court passed a preliminary decree in 1999, amended in 2003, determining the parties' shares, but a final decree had not been …
The case concerned a dispute over the partition of certain properties originally belonging to G.R. Kuppuswamy Naidu, who had acquired them by a Will executed by his father in 1921. After Kuppuswamy's death, his sons and their descendants claimed the properties, while the plaintiffs argued that the …
The appeal arose from a partition suit concerning the self‑acquired property of the deceased Govinda Singh, who allegedly left a will in favour of his son (the appellant). The daughters contested the will’s validity and sought partition of the dwelling house. The key legal issue was the effect of …
The case concerned the devolution of a Mitakshara coparcenary property after the death of Babu Ram in 1989, who left two sons (born 1938 and 1956) and three daughters. The trial court held part of the property to be separate and part ancestral; the appellate courts affirmed, while the High Court …
