Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Hindu law

DORAIRAJ versus DORAISAMY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ORS.

The High Court correctly held that the suit properties were, in large part, joint Hindu family properties given the admitted genealogy and existence of ancestral income-yielding lands; the burden lay on the appellant to prove self-acquisition and legal necessity for alienations by the Karta, which was not established except in limited items, the unregistered Will was properly treated as suspicious and not relied upon, and therefore the High Court's decree awarding the plaintiff a 5/16th share (with exclusion of specified items) was upheld; the appeals were dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Karta
  • Coparcenary
  • Self-acquired property
  • Burden of proof
  • Will
  • Partition
Read case analysis
Hindu law

DASTAGIRSAB versus SHARANAPPA @ SHIVASHARANAPPA POLICE PATIL (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

The High Court erred in finding the sale was not for legal necessity and that the purchaser was not bona fide; the purchaser produced evidence (agreement, money receipts signed by coparceners and the Karta's daughter, mutation and revenue records) establishing a nexus between the sale and marriage expenses, thereby discharging the onus under Section 106, Evidence Act, 1872; consequently the sale was for legal necessity, binding on coparceners, and the Trial Court's dismissal of the suit was upheld.

Source excerpt

  • Karta's right to alienate joint family property
  • Legal necessity
  • Marriage expenses as family necessity
  • Bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration
  • Onus of proof under section 106, evidence act, 1872
  • Coparcenary property
Read case analysis
Succession

METPALLI LASUM BAI (SINCE DEAD) AND OTHERS versus METAPALLI MUTHAIH (D) BY LRS.

The trial Court correctly found the registered Will (Ext.-A1) genuine and the oral family settlement corroborated by admissions and possession; because the defendant admitted the testator's signatures and plaintiff's possession of the allotted land, the High Court erred in reducing plaintiff's share and substituting its own factual conclusions, so the trial Court's decree restoring plaintiff's title and validating the sale was restored.

Source excerpt

  • Will
  • Registered will
  • Family settlement
  • Declaration of title
  • Partition
  • Admission of signatures
Read case analysis
Code of civil procedure

ANGADI CHANDRANNA versus SHANKAR & ORS.

The High Court erred in re-appreciating evidence and framing a non-substantial question of law under Section 100/103 CPC; the First Appellate Court had considered the evidence and plausibly concluded that Defendant No.1 purchased the suit property in 1989 with funds including a loan from DW3, and plaintiffs failed to prove a joint family nucleus or that the purchase was from joint family funds; consequently the suit property is self-acquired and the sale to Defendant No.2 is valid.

Source excerpt

  • Property
  • Ancestral property
  • Self-acquired property
  • Joint family property
  • Sale deed
  • Partition deed
Read case analysis
Hindu law

TIRITH KUMAR & ORS. versus DADURAM & ORS.

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 does not apply to members of Scheduled Tribes absent a Central Government notification under s.2(2); the parties were members of the notified Sawara tribe and no de-notification was produced, so the High Court correctly held HSA inapplicable and, because Mardan died in 1951 (prior to HSA, 1956), correctly applied Sections 5 and 6 of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 and the principles of justice, equity and good conscience to grant a portion of the property to Mardan's daughters and their descendants; the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

Source excerpt

  • Application of the hindu succession act, 1956 to scheduled tribes
  • Notified scheduled tribe (sawara)
  • Justice, equity and good conscience under central provinces laws act, 1875
  • Right of survivorship for female tribals
Read case analysis
Hindu law

KASABAI TUKARAM KARVAR & ORS. versus NIVRUTI (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS & ORS

Where succession opened prior to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and a widow validly adopted a son, the adoption relates back to the date of the husband's death; consequently the adopted son is to be treated as a son on that date and, in the facts of this case, becomes the sole coparcener excluding the daughter born after the father's death; the mother's subsequent remarriage does not confer rights on the daughter in presence of the relation-back adoption.

Source excerpt

  • Doctrine of relation back
  • Coparcenary
  • Remarriage effect on succession
  • Pre-1956 succession rules
Read case analysis
Hindu succession

MUNNI DEVI ALIAS NATHI DEVI (DEAD) THR LRS. & ORS. versus RAJENDRA ALIAS LALLU LAL (DEAD) THR LRS. & ORS.

The widow (defendant no.1) had a pre-existing right to maintenance under Shastric law, was in exclusive and settled possession of the suit property prior to and after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and had collected rents and paid house tax; therefore she had effectively acquired the suit property in lieu of maintenance and by virtue of Section 14(1) her limited interest ripened into absolute ownership, so the High Court's order dismissing the plaintiff's suit was correct.

Source excerpt

  • Interpretation of section 14(1) hindu succession act, 1956
  • Widow's right to maintenance
  • Possession in lieu of maintenance
  • Conversion of limited interest into absolute ownership
Read case analysis
Hindu law

M.R. VINODA versus M.S. SUSHEELAMMA (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS

The relinquishment deed (Exhibit P-2) executed by the eldest brother as Karta of his branch was valid because it was made in circumstances where Patel Mallegowda had paid the larger share to redeem a mortgage (serving the interest of the entire family), the relinquishment settled accounts among branches and was for legal necessity/benefit of the estate; consequently the deed could not be declared void and the suit filed in 1994 challenging it was barred by limitation (Article 109 and Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act).

Source excerpt

  • Karta
  • Relinquishment deed
  • Partition
  • Joint hindu family
  • Coparcenary
  • Legal necessity
Read case analysis
Hindu law

SIVASANKARAN versus SANTHIMEENAL

On the facts the marriage was never consummated, the parties lived separately from the date of marriage for almost 20 years, mediation attempts failed, and the respondent's continuing acts during the pendency of proceedings (multiple writs, RTI/disciplinary complaints, criminal complaint and workplace harassment) demonstrated disintegration of marital unity amounting to cruelty; accordingly the Court granted a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage both by exercising Article 142 for irretrievable breakdown and under Section 13(1)(i-a) for cruelty.

Source excerpt

  • Divorce
  • Cruelty
  • Irretrievable breakdown of marriage
  • Article 142
  • Section 13(1)(i-a) of the hindu marriage act
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

R. JANAKIAMMAL versus S.K. KUMARASAMY(DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS

The Supreme Court held that a separate suit to set aside a consent decree on the ground that the underlying compromise was unlawful is barred by Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC and thus Suit No.1101 of 1987 could not challenge the 06.08.1984 compromise decree; however, the Tatabad residential property (Item No.X of Schedule B), which was not part of O.S. No.37/1984 or its compromise decree, was held to be a joint family asset and a decree was granted declaring the plaintiff and the two other branches entitled to one-third each, with a preliminary decree for partition to be drawn.

Source excerpt

  • Order xxiii rule 3 and 3a cpc
  • Consent decree/compromise decree
  • Void and voidable agreements under indian contract act
  • Reunion of joint hindu family
  • Partition and title to joint family property
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.