Lethargy Is Not an Exceptional Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off of Defence for Delay in Filing Written Statement Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings Unregistered Power of Attorney Can’t Transfer Property: MP High Court Denies Title, Dismisses Ejectment Suit Mere Non-Recovery of Weapon Is Not Fatal When Circumstantial and Medical Evidence Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Failure to Examine Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Who Certified Seizure Goes to Root of Fair Trial Under NDPS Act : Calcutta High Court Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation Negation of Bail is the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court Section 10 CPC Inapplicable To Labour Court Proceedings; Stay Of Individual Disputes Denied: Karnataka High Court 138 NI Act | Once Issuance and Signature on Cheque Are Admitted, Burden Shifts on Accused to Dislodge Statutory Presumption: Madras High Court Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder "Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court Partition Once Effected Cannot Be Reopened on Vague Allegations of Fraud: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Registered Family Partition Deed Cancellation of Land Acquisition Compensation Without Allegation or Hearing Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Restores Compensation to Innocent Land Owner Whether Act Was in Discharge of Official Duty Is a Question of Fact — Magistrate, Not High Court, Must Decide: Supreme Court Restricts Writ Interference in BNSS Cases Section 175(4) BNSS | Affidavit Is Not Optional — Even Complaints Against Public Servants Must Follow Procedural Rigour: Supreme Court Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

“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