Kerala HC Issues Notice to Digi Yatra Foundation in PIL Seeking Strict Compliance with DPDP Act 2023 for Airport Passenger Data: High Court of Kerala
07 Mar 2026
Appointment to Higher Post on Compassionate Grounds Not a Matter of Right: J&K&L High Court
07 Mar 2026
Nearly Decade-Long Delay in Patnitop Illegal Construction PIL Appalls J&K&L High Court; Directs PDA CEO to Join Proceedings
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
CJI Kant: Action Needed for More Women Judges
10 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA
Umesh Singh – Appellant
Versus
Kapildeo Singh – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
Rudra Prakash Mishra, J.—The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 24.06.1978 and decree dated 04.07.1978 passed by 2nd Additional Sub Judge, Monghyr in Title Suit No. 116 of 1973/3 of 1977 by which the learned Court below has been decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.
2. For better appreciation of case, the parties shall be referred according to their status before the lower Court.
3. The case of the plaintiffs (respondents herein) is that the plaintiffs and defendants 1st parties are joint family governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law and are related to each others as Shown in the Genealogical Table given below:—
| Kuldip Singh |
A joint Hindu family property remains joint unless proven otherwise; the burden of proof lies on the party claiming separate ownership, requiring credible evidence.
A joint Hindu family's property remains joint unless the asserting party proves separation or prior partition; the burden of proof lies with the party claiming such separation.
The court affirmed that ancestral property remains so despite partition, and daughters are entitled to equal shares under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended.
A joint family is presumed to remain joint unless a clear severance of status is proven, even without a physical division of property.
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
Listen Article