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
Civil procedure

SAROJ SALKAN versus HUMA SINGH & ORS.

The appeal was dismissed because Order XII Rule 6 CPC empowers the court to dismiss the suit or pass judgment on admitted facts even on its own motion; the prior declaratory decrees (Suits II, III and IV) and admitted pleadings established that the appellant and respondent no.6 had accepted the father as owner and were ousted from the properties, those decrees were not and could have been timely challenged and therefore bind the parties, the proviso to amended Section 6 applies as partitions were recognised before 20-12-2004, and the challenge to title of C-38 Anand Niketan is barred by limit…

Source excerpt

  • Partition
  • Order xii rule 6 cpc
  • Order vii rule 11 cpc
  • Judgment on admissions
  • Limitation
  • Estoppel
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 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 succession act, 1956

VINEETA SHARMA versus RAKESH SHARMA & ORS.

Substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (as amended in 2005) confers the status of coparcener on daughters born before or after the amendment in the same manner as sons, with the same rights and liabilities; these rights are exercisable with effect from 09.09.2005 (subject to the proviso saving dispositions, alienations, partitions or testamentary dispositions before 20.12.2004); the statutory fiction of notional partition in the original Section 6 only served to ascertain a deceased coparcener’s share and did not effect actual partition or disrupt the coparcenary; Section 6(5…

Source excerpt

  • Section 6 interpretation
  • Coparcenary
  • Partition
  • Oral partition
  • Retrospectivity
  • Gender equality
Read case analysis
Family law

M. ARUMUGAM versus AMMANIAMMAL AND ORS.

The interest of the deceased coparcener devolved under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act because Class-I female heirs survived; heirs took as tenants-in-common (not joint family property) per Sections 19 and 30; where a family settlement results in relinquishment of a minor's share in favour of the Karta, the Karta cannot act as the minor's guardian due to conflict of interest and the mother may validly act as natural guardian; the release deed was at best voidable under Section 8 of the Guardianship Act and was not void ab initio and should have been challenged within three years of atta…

Source excerpt

  • Hindu succession act 1956
  • Guardianship (hindu minority & guardianship act, 1956)
  • Coparcenary
  • Joint hindu family
  • Natural guardian
  • Partition
Read case analysis
Hindu law

TRIJUGI NARAIN (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS versus SANKOO (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS

The Supreme Court held that the Nazul perpetual leasehold property formed part of the impartible estate of the sovereign Ruler of Maihar (Brij Nath Singh), was governed by the rule of primogeniture and was not coparcenary property; Section 5(ii) of the Hindu Succession Act and binding precedent preserve such succession and the Ruler could validly bequeath or transfer the property, and accordingly the High Court judgment was affirmed and the appeals dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Impartible estate
  • Primogeniture
  • Coparcenary
  • Hindu succession act s.5(ii)
  • Merger agreements and covenants
  • Leasehold nazul land
Read case analysis
Family law

SHREYA VIDYARTHI versus ASHOK VIDYARTHI & ORS.

A Hindu widow cannot act as Karta of her husband's HUF but can function as Manager of the HUF in her capacity as guardian of a minor sole male coparcener. The suit property, purchased from insurance and joint family funds, remained joint family property despite being registered in the stepmother's name. Accordingly, the male coparcener (respondent) was entitled to partition, and apportionment of shares as decided by the High Court was correct.

Source excerpt

  • Hindu undivided family
  • Coparcenary
  • Succession
  • Manager vs karta of huf
  • Partition of property
Read case analysis
Property law

G.VARALAKSHMI & ANR. versus G.SRINIVASA RAO(D) THROUGH LRS. & ANR

The parties are entitled to equal shares in respect of Item Nos. 5 and 7 of Schedule I, under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, as the relevant property was not coparcenary but individual, and female heirs are equally entitled by virtue of the amended laws.

Source excerpt

  • Hindu succession act
  • Partition
  • Coparcenary
  • Will
  • Rights of daughters
Read case analysis
Family law

M. YOGENDRA & ORS. versus LEELAMMA N. & ORS

The son, Dinesh, born from a second marriage invalid under Section 5 of Hindu Marriage Act, would not inherit as a coparcener; Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act applies and provides equal share to all Class I heirs, including daughters and Dinesh; evidence admissible under Section 50 of Evidence Act confirmed the relationship and succession rights.

Source excerpt

  • Hindu succession act
  • Coparcenary
  • Legitimacy of children
  • Partition of 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.