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
Partition

RAJINDER KAUR (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIR USHA versus GURBHAJAN KAUR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. UPINDER KAUR AND OTHERS

The High Court erred in holding that defendant No.3(a) and defendant Nos.15 to 19 were not liable to render accounts; since defendant No.3(a) had admitted induction of tenants and receipt of rent and defendants Nos.15-19 are carrying on business in portions in their possession, the Trial Court must inquire into the genuineness of rent claims, fix the appropriate rent and require these defendants to render accounts and/or contribute rent to the common kitty as assessed while passing the final decree; if any co-sharer fails to contribute, their distributable share shall be reduced accordingly.

Source excerpt

  • Rendition of accounts by co-sharers
  • Mesne profits
  • Sale by auction
  • Chandigarh (sale of sites and buildings) rules, 1960
Read case analysis
Partition

JUGAL KISHORE KHANNA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR. versus SUDHIR KHANNA & ORS.

The Malcha Marg property was not shown to have been purchased out of joint family funds and therefore devolves exclusively on the LRs of ACK; as to the Kamla Nagar property, the evidence shows that Rs.55,000 was paid by the appellants' side in 1979 and, coupled with exclusive possession, receipt of rents by appellants and absence of any claim by ACK during his lifetime, this payment constituted consideration in a family settlement for ACK's 50% share, entitling the appellants to be declared exclusive owners; accordingly the High Court judgment is set aside insofar as Kamla Nagar and the Trial…

Source excerpt

  • Partial partition
  • Oral settlement
  • Family settlement
  • Benami
  • Registration under section 17
Read case analysis
Hindu succession act, 1956

SACHIDHANANDAM SINCE DEAD THROUGH HIS LRS. versus E. VANAJA AND ORS.

A combined reading of Section 15(1)(a) and Section 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 establishes that on the intestacy of a female Hindu the property devolves first upon her sons and daughters (including children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband; consequently the widow of a pre-deceased son does not have the first right to receive any share in her mother-in-law's share. The High Court's finding that the suit properties are joint family properties is not perverse, but the High Court erred in allotting a 1/16th share to the plaintiff out of her mother-in-law's share.

Source excerpt

  • Order of succession
  • Distribution among heirs
  • Rights of widow of pre-deceased son
  • Interpretation of ss.15 and 16 of hindu succession act, 1956
  • Mesne profits
  • Validity of will
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

M/S TRINITY INFRAVENTURES LTD. & ORS. ETC. versus M. S. MURTHY & ORS. ETC.

The Court held that a preliminary decree in a partition suit does not determine title against third parties; execution proceedings under Order XXI rr.97-101 cannot finally adjudicate independent title claimed by non-parties but only examine prima facie bona fides of such claims; consequently the 1963 preliminary decree cannot be enforced to defeat independent third-party or State claims and the enforcement steps and assignments in this case constituted an abuse of process though the decree might not be vitiated by fraud in strict legal sense.

Source excerpt

  • Preliminary decree
  • Fraud
  • Order xxi rr.97-101 cpc
  • Mathruka property
  • Paigah/jagir abolition
  • Nazim atiyat
Read case analysis
Code of civil procedure, 1908

B. R. PATIL versus TULSA Y. SAWKAR & ORS.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's determination that the plaint schedule properties were self-acquired properties of R.M. Patil and that the plaintiffs (and other legal heirs) are entitled to declared shares; Order II Rule 3 does not compel joinder of other causes or parties and non-joinder did not imperil the suit on the cause of action before the court; the appellant failed to prove ancestral/joint family properties omitted from the plaint or to establish ouster/adverse possession of item No.3, and items alleged in the written statement were shown to be separate acquisitions of the…

Source excerpt

  • Joinder of causes of action
  • Non-joinder of necessary parties
  • Partial partition
  • Ouster and adverse possession
  • Admissions in pleadings
  • Preliminary decree vs final decree
Read case analysis
Partition

SAJAN SETHI versus RAJAN SETHI

Because the appellant-defendant raised the dispute over common areas in his written statement, the Trial Court properly framed and decided that issue on the evidence; on the facts (corner plot with side lane providing direct access to the defendant's staircase) the defendant could not claim use of the front driveway and was limited to easementary access to water pipes/booster pump, and therefore the High Court's directions and the decree for partition were supported by the record; the appeals are dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Partition of property
  • Common areas
  • Interpretation of will
  • Easementary rights
  • Court-ordered sale/auction
Read case analysis
Religion

M SIDDIQ (D) THR LRS versus V. MAHANT SURESH DAS & ORS

Hindus established possessory title to the disputed property through long, continuous, and unimpeded worship; Sunni Central Waqf Board's claim of dedication by user or adverse possession is not established; three-way division by the High Court was legally unsustainable and the disputed site constitutes a composite whole. Muslims were wrongfully deprived of their mosque; justice requires allocation of 5 acres of alternate land to the Sunni Central Waqf Board. Management scheme to be framed by Government, with Nirmohi Akhara assigned a role; affirmation of worshipper's rights subject to public…

Source excerpt

  • Ayodhya matter
  • Ram janmabhumi
  • Babri masjid dispute
  • Limitation
  • Partition
  • Places of worship (special provisions) act 1991
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

RAM KARAN GUPTA versus J.S. EXIM LTD. AND ORS.

Auction purchaser complied with Orders 21 Rules 84 and 85 CPC by depositing 25% of bid amount by demand drafts on the date of auction and the remaining 75% within the statutory period. Appellant's application under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC was not accompanied by the requisite deposit within the prescribed period; therefore, the sale was properly confirmed. Strict compliance with procedural rules is required; belated offers or applications without timely deposit cannot be entertained.

Source excerpt

  • Auction sale
  • Execution proceedings
  • Confirmation of sale
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

BIMAL KUMAR & ANOTHER versus SHAKUNTALA DEBI & OTHERS

The compromise decree dated 03.04.1964 was a final decree, as parties had admitted exclusive possession and division of properties; no final decree proceedings remained. There was no stay on the decree or subsequent litigation to block its enforcement. The execution application filed by the respondents was indubitably barred by limitation, as Article 136 of the Limitation Act stipulates a twelve-year period, and no time consumed by subsequent suits or appeals could be excluded in absence of a stay.

Source excerpt

  • Compromise decree
  • Partition suit
  • Execution proceedings
  • Limitation period under article 136
Read case analysis
Civil law

SMT. AJAMBI (DEAD) BY LRS. versus ROSHANBI AND ORS.

Disputed factual questions regarding the validity of the Will and the status of the appellant as legal representative must first be determined by the trial court with evidence under Order XXII Rule 5 CPC; only thereafter can the Supreme Court determine rights and claims of the parties, including the share potentially bequeathable under Mahomedan law, which is limited to 1/3rd by Will.

Source excerpt

  • Partition and separate possession
  • Will under mahomedan law
  • Legal representative status
  • Probate requirements
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.