Case Law Details
Case Name : Mukatlal Vs Kailash Chand (D) Through Lrs. And Ors. (Supreme Court India)
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
Supreme Court of India
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Mukatlal Vs Kailash Chand (D) Through Lrs. And Ors. (Supreme Court India)
For establishing full ownership on the undivided joint family estate under Section 14(1) of the Succession Act the Hindu female must not only be possessed of the property but she must have acquired the property and such acquisition must be either by way of inheritance or devise, or at a partition or “in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance” or by gift or be her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription.
Supreme Court of India recently addressed significant legal principles concerning the owner...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
Author Bio
Dear, I have been regularly going through the selected postings on Taxguru, and appreciate the same. Here is my small feedback on this post:
1. It has been stated in the review that “It rejected appeals challenging Smt. Nandkanwarbai’s claims, thereby upholding her adopted son Kailash Chand’s rights to pursue partition under succession laws.”
2. However, the judgement is otherwise.
27. On close scrutiny of the judgments rendered by the learned Single Judge and the learned Division Bench of the High Court, we find that there is no consideration in these judgments that the predecessor of the plaintiff Kailash Chand or the plaintiff himself were ever in possession of the suit property or had acquired the same in the manner as indicated in the judgment of Sivadasan(supra).
28. As a consequence of the above discussion, the impugned judgments do not stand to scrutiny and cannot be sustained.
29. Resultantly, the judgment dated 2nd November, 2017 rendered by learned Division Bench and the judgment dated 21st July, 2006 rendered by the learned Single Judge are hereby reversed and set aside.
30. Consequently, the Revenue Suit No. 37 of 1979 filed by the plaintiff is dismissed.
31. The appeal is allowed in these terms. No costs.”
I am not able to clearly understand your review. There appears to be some contradiction, may please see.
Regards,
Yash Paul Bhola
ypbhola44@yahoo.co.in
Dear Sir,
We have made changes to clear the contradiction. Thanks for your observations.