Back
C. M. JOSHI
Basangouda S/o. Nagangouda – Appellant
Versus
Muddangouda S/o. Ramangouda – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed in RA No.28/2008 on the file of the Prl. District Judge, Raichur arising out of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.20/2006 by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Raichur dated 06.03.2008.
2. The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. No.20/2006. The parties are referred as per their ranking before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The appellant filed a suit for declaration and injunction contending that he had married Smt. Eshwaramma D/o Ramangouda in the year 1960 and his wife Eshwaramma was owner in possession of suit land bearing Sy.No.287/A measuring 22 acres 18 guntas situated at Athanur village in Manvi Taluk. It was contended that after the death of his wife Eshwaramma, the plaintiff became a exclusive legal heir and the said Eshwaramma died issueless in the year 1998. It was also contended that the said Eshwaramma had acquired ownership over the suit property on the strength of the oral partition between her father and her brothers namely Muddanagouda, Sharanappa, Siddanagouda and Shanker in the year 1968. The partition which was initially oral, came to be recorded in a memorandum of partit
None identified.
Babballapati Kameswararao VS Kavuri Vesudevarao - 1971 0 Supreme(AP) 91: The provided text describes a specific legal interpretation regarding Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. As the provided text does not contain any subsequent judicial history, markers (such as "followed," "overruled," or "reversed"), or procedural status updates, it functions as a statement of law rather than a treatment of a prior precedent.
Babballapati Kameswararao VS Kavuri Vesudevarao - 1971 0 Supreme(AP) 91: The treatment of this case is unclear because the provided text only states a legal interpretation. There is no information regarding whether this interpretation has been upheld, challenged, or overruled in later judicial proceedings. Therefore, it cannot be definitively categorized into an established treatment pattern.
Section 15(2) of Hindu Succession Act deal with inheritance from parental family of a female Hindu.
The court determined that an oral partition can establish ownership of joint family property without formal documentation, being legitimate under Hindu law. Plaintiffs are entitled to seek recovery b....
The court clarified the application of Hindu Succession Act provisions to determine the entitlement to ancestral properties.
A voluntary partition deed conferring rights on a female heir is valid despite prior restrictions under Hindu inheritance law, emphasizing that such arrangements, once consensually made, cannot be co....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that properties derived by the father through a partition deed are to be treated as his self-acquired properties, as per Section 8 of the Hindu Suc....
Daughters are barred from inheriting from their father if succession opened prior to the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, which does not retroactively apply.
The remarriage of a widow does not disqualify her from inheriting her deceased husband's property under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
The Hindu Succession Act's provisions do not apply retrospectively to successions that occurred before its enactment, precluding daughters from inheriting property from fathers who died before 1956.
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
