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 succession act, 1956

PRASANTA KUMAR SAHOO & ORS. versus CHARULATA SAHU & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that (1) under Vineeta Sharma the substituted Section 6 confers coparcenary rights on daughters by birth and those rights must be given effect to in final decree proceedings where the amendment came into force before conclusion of final decree, entitling the plaintiff (a daughter) to 1/3 share in all properties scheduled in the plaint; (2) the cross-appeal by Original Defendant No.2 challenging the recorded compromise was maintainable under Order XLI r.22 read with O. XLIII r.1-A(2); and (3) the settlement between Defendant Nos.1 and 2 was invalid under Order XXIII r.3…

Source excerpt

  • Interpretation of section 6 (hindu succession act)
  • Partition of joint family property
  • Validity of compromise under order xxiii rule 3 cpc
  • Maintainability of cross-appeal
  • Authority of advocate to sign compromise
  • Effect of legislative change on pending partition proceedings
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

R. S. ANJAYYA GUPTA versus THIPPAIAH SETTY & ORS.

As the High Court disposed of the first appeal by merely affirming the Trial Court's opinion without analyzing evidence or addressing all material aspects, the Supreme Court remanded the first appeal to the High Court for proper consideration on merits, including all relevant factual and legal issues raised by the appellant.

Source excerpt

  • Partition of joint family property
  • Joint hindu family
  • First appeal procedure
  • Appellate court duties
Read case analysis
Property law

KIRPAL KAUR versus JITENDER PAL SINGH & ORS.

Despite concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court, there was positive evidence that Schedule 'B' property was joint family property, and the plaintiff's husband contributed towards its construction. The gift deed executed during the pendency of litigation was invalid under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Upon the death of the first defendant, Schedule 'B' property devolves on all Class I heirs under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act. Plaintiff and all defendants are entitled to equal 1/4th shares.

Source excerpt

  • Partition of joint family property
  • Doctrine of lis pendens
  • Succession and inheritance
  • Validity of gift deed
  • Hindu succession act
  • Transfer of property act
Read case analysis
Family law

VATHSALA MANICKAVASAGAM & ORS. versus N. GANESAN & ANR.

Failure of the High Court to consider Ext.A-17 and examine the legal requirements of 'gift' led to a misreading of evidence. The admission by the respondent in Ext.A-17 and lack of evidence supporting the gift meant all properties were joint family properties, and the trial court's decree should be restored.

Source excerpt

  • Partition of joint family property
  • Law of gifts
  • Admission under evidence act
Read case analysis
Hindu law

PREMA versus NANJE GOWDA AND OTHERS

When a statutory amendment conferring enhanced rights is enforced and final decree proceedings are pending, the party benefiting from the amendment (here, unmarried daughter) may seek such enlarged share in final decree proceedings, and the court is duty bound to give effect to the change, even if preliminary decree was earlier affirmed and appeals dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Partition of joint family property
  • Preliminary and final decrees
  • Amendments to statutory succession rights
  • Benefit of state amendments in final decree proceedings
  • Equal rights of unmarried daughters under hindu succession act amendments
Read case analysis
Civil

MADDINENI KOTESWARA RAO versus MADDINENI BHASKARA RAO AND ANR.

In a partition suit, final adjudication of shares following a death and bequest by Will can be made at final decree stage, and genuineness of Will can be determined within the suit without need for separate proceedings. Thus, courts below were justified in allocating two shares to the respondent based on the father's Will, and Section 97 CPC does not preclude such adjustment where the deceased's share devolves testate.

Source excerpt

  • Partition of joint family property
  • Will (testate succession)
  • Adjustment of shares at final decree stage
  • Probate in partition suit
  • Preliminary and final decree procedure
  • Section 97 cpc
Read case analysis
Land law

STATE OF A.P. & ANR. versus T. YADAGIRI REDDY & ORS

Once land is transferred to protected tenant and certificates are issued after due process, the land must be excluded from owner's ceiling holding and included in tenant's. Orders and certificates that have attained finality cannot be reopened absent fraud or impropriety, and the government is not justified in reopening finalized ceiling cases or certificates. Protected tenancy status applies to all joint family members in partitioned land purchased out of family income.

Source excerpt

  • Protected tenants
  • Ceiling on agricultural holdings
  • Land transfer
  • Res judicata
  • Partition of joint family property
Read case analysis
Property law

K.V. SUDHARSHAN versus A. RAMAKRISHNAPPA & ORS.

Inam lands granted under the Mysore (Religious and Charitable Inams) Abolition Act, 1955, to a family member for being archak are for the benefit of the joint family and available for partition; grant of occupancy rights to the eldest son does not exclude other members from their share.

Source excerpt

  • Partition of joint family property
  • Religious and charitable inam lands
  • Occupancy rights
Read case analysis
Property law

N. PADMAMMA AND OTHERS versus S. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY AND OTHERS

The civil court's jurisdiction is not completely ousted by the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 regarding partition suits for joint family property where occupancy right is granted to one member; occupancy rights granted to a manager of joint family enure to the benefit of the family and are partible. Statutory ouster of jurisdiction must be strictly construed, and unless the Act provides a competent forum to resolve disputes among co-sharers, civil courts retain jurisdiction. Succession rights under Hindu Succession Act, 1956 are not abrogated except by a subseque…

Source excerpt

  • Jurisdiction of civil court
  • Partition of joint family property
  • Interpretation of abolition of inams act
  • Succession and inheritance rights
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

RACHAKONDA VENKAT RAO AND ORS. versus R. SATYA BAI (D) BY LR. AND ANR.

The decree dated 13th July 1978, passed on the basis of a compromise, effected a complete and final partition of the suit properties and parties were put in possession of their respective shares as per mutual agreement. Some properties were intentionally kept joint by the parties due to practical impossibility of physical partition, and there was no reservation of further rights or steps in the compromise or the decree. Therefore, the decree was final, and subsequent proceedings for passing a final decree were not maintainable.

Source excerpt

  • Partition of joint family property
  • Nature of preliminary and final decrees
  • Compromise decree
  • Execution of decrees
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.