Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
India decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Supreme Court held that heirs under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act take as tenants-in-common with separate shares, so karta-based legal necessity did not apply.
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
The Court held that Ex.D-15 (09.11.1956) and Ex.D-16 (14.09.1967), being duly proved registered release deeds supported by consideration and corroborated by subsequent conduct, validly severed plaintiff no.2 and defendant no.3 from the coparcenary; that the unregistered palupatti (Ex.D-17 with Ex.D-17(a)) is admissible for collateral purposes to prove severance of joint status as from 11.02.1972 and to explain subsequent separate possession and enjoyment; and on that basis the partitionable pool is Schedule A and items 1–16 of Schedule C, with shares fixed (plaintiff no.1 8/21, defendant no.5…
Source excerpt
The High Court erred in permitting defendant no.2 to file a counter-claim seeking specific performance and partition because the primary relief of specific performance was directed solely against a co-defendant (the deceased original vendor as represented by the Nazir) and not against the plaintiff; a counter-claim must be directed against the plaintiff under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC. Further, the application for counter-claim was filed after issues had been framed and after inaction for many years, raising concerns of delay and limitation, making the counter-claim impermissible in the circumst…
Source excerpt
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
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
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
The appellants failed to prove the suit property was not ancestral; the compromise decree recorded by the court cannot be challenged by filing a fresh suit due to the bar under Order 23 Rule 3A CPC and Section 96(3) CPC, and the proper remedy would have been a recall application to the court which recorded the compromise; additionally the suit is barred by Order 2 Rule 2 and principles of res judicata; therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
On the plaint's averments and attached registered sale deeds and revenue records showing an oral family partition in 1968 and registered sales in 1978, the plaintiffs had constructive notice and slept on their rights; the trial court correctly allowed the defendants' application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as the suit did not disclose a cause of action and was prima facie barred by limitation, and the High Court erred in remanding the matter.
Source excerpt
The adoption of the appellant by the widow (defendant No.1) relates back to the date of death of the adoptive father, but all lawful alienations made by the adoptive mother bind the adopted son; the registered sale deed dated 13.12.2007 was a lawful alienation and is binding on the appellant and must be upheld, whereas the registered gift deed dated 27.08.2008 was invalid for lack of delivery/acceptance and the trial Court’s declaration that the gift was null and void and that the appellant is entitled to the entire B and C schedule properties as sole heir is to be restored (High Court’s reve…
Source excerpt
Explore more
