Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MILIND N. JADHAV
Sabita Rajesh Narang (Nee Sabita G. Raheja) – Appellant
Versus
Sandeep Gopal Raheja – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
1. Heard Mr. Setalvad, learned Senior Advocate for Plaintiff; Mr. Khambata, learned Senior Advocate for Defendant No.1; Mr. Saraf, learned Senior Advocate for Defendant No.2; Mr. Tamboly, learned Advocate for Defendant Nos.3 and 4; Mr. Mehta learned, Advocate for Defendant No.5; Mr. Nankani, learned Senior Advocate for Defendant Nos.7 to 10; Mr. Momaya, learned Advocate for Defendant Nos.11 to 15, 17 to 19, 22, 24 and 25; Mr. Bharucha, learned Advocate for Defendant Nos.27 to 30; Mr. Naphade, learned Advocate for Defendant Nos.31 and 32 and Mr. Kakalia, learned Advocate for Defendant Nos.33 and 34 at length.
2. Pleadings in Notice of Motion No.1211 of 2014 seeking interim reliefs are completed upto Sur-Rejoinder stage.
3. Notice of Motion is heard and determined finally by this order.
4. Notice of Motion seeks interim reliefs as follows:-
“a. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Suit, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain Defendants and in particular Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from excluding /obstructing the Plaintiff from exercising and protecting her rights including in the joint management and control of the properties, assets and
The judgement clarifies that a daughter, as a coparcener, may seek a share in joint family property, but must substantiate claims with sufficient evidence of coparcenary status and joint family exist....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in order to claim a share in ancestral properties as part of an HUF, it is necessary to provide specific factual details of the creation or ex....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between inherited property and property acquired on partition in the context of coparcenary properties. The judgment emphasizes the....
Amendments to the Hindu Succession Act do not apply retroactively to previously partitioned properties, confirming the validity of prior partitions.
A shareholder cannot claim ownership of a company's assets, and a suit for partition must include all necessary parties to be maintainable.
The court ruled that a plaintiff’s limited interest in property, dictated by the will, cannot be construed as absolute ownership; undue influence invalidates share transfers.
The court determined that the plaint disclosed a valid cause of action, necessitating a trial regarding the status of the property as part of a Hindu Undivided Family.
The court affirmed the rights of daughters as coparceners in ancestral properties under amended Hindu Succession Act, allowing them equal shares alongside sons.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rights of daughters as coparceners would not be revived in respect of properties that have already been partitioned, as clarified in the V....
At the stage of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court cannot go into the veracity of the pleas taken in the plaint or its truthfulness. The same can only be tested in a trial.
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
