Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

“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