Back
V. R. K. KRUPA SAGAR
Nurukurthi Solman Raju – Appellant
Versus
Nurukurthi Veera Lakshmi – Respondent
JUDGMENT:
The supreme art is to achieve maximum result with minimum effort. A warring husband, if happens to kill his wife, stands disqualified from inheriting the property of his wife[Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956]. However, an ingenious husband treads the path of killing his live wife on paper and convinces others about his inheritance of her estate and embarked upon alienating the properties of his living wife. The present case depicts the unrighteous positions taken up by the husband and display of ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone. There is clear use of sophistry for misleading by means of specious fallacies exerting to convince on the touch stone of pleadings and burden of proof, though in truth there remained nothing to decide in that respect.
2. This appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) impugns the judgment dated 30.01.2016 of learned IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada in O.S.No.33 of 2010. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are appellants herein. The sole plaintiff in the suit is respondent No.1. Defendant Nos.4, 5 and 6 are arrayed as respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 in this appeal.
3. Sri P.Raghu Ram, the learned Senior Counsel rep
A registered owner's title cannot be defeated by fraudulent claims of death and misrepresentation by family members regarding property ownership.
Children born out of wedlock can claim equal rights to inheritance alongside legitimate children, as per Hindu law principles.
The court established that property classified as stridhana under the Hindu Succession Act grants absolute ownership rights to female heirs, overriding previous limited rights.
The court established that property classified as stridhana under the Hindu Succession Act grants absolute ownership rights to female heirs, overriding previous limited rights.
The plaintiff must prove his own title to succeed in a suit for declaration of title, as established by the will's provisions.
The plaintiff failed to prove joint ownership of the property or contribution to its acquisition, affirming that self-acquired property cannot be claimed as joint without evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
