Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case

“Division Consistent With Legal Provisions”: Supreme Court Affirms Decision on Mitakshara Coparcenary Property

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment dated September 1, 2023, under the bench of Justices C.T. RAVIKUMAR and SANJAY KUMAR, dismissed a special leave appeal that revolved around the complex issue of Mitakshara coparcenary property. The apex court observed that the “division is consistent with legal provisions,” upholding the High Court’s decision.

The case has its roots in Civil Suit No. 146A of 1991, filed following Kesar Bai’s request for partition of properties. After her demise, the appellant, Derha Ram, succeeded her estate and was initially granted a 1/3rd share in agricultural lands and house properties. Though an Appellate Court upheld this share, the High Court later revised it to 1/6th, based on Sections 6 and 8 of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956.

The judgment also cited previous cases like Gurupad Khandappa Magdum and Shyama Devi, emphasizing that “the principles in Gurupad Khandappa Magdum and others have been duly considered.”

Rejecting the appellant’s argument that the properties were not coparcenary in nature, the Court stated such a position was “inconsistent with the original plaintiff’s pleadings.”

This ruling is expected to have far-reaching consequences, especially in matters of succession and Mitakshara coparcenary properties. Legal experts predict that this judgment will serve as an important reference for similar cases going forward.

The complete judgment is available for public scrutiny, providing an in-depth look at the Court’s legal reasoning and conclusions.

Date of Decision: September 1, 2023

DERHA vs VISHAL & ANR.

Latest Legal News