Back
KRISHNA RAO
Ayussh Rathhi – Appellant
Versus
Ashok Kumar Rathi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
KRISHNA RAO, J.
1. Defendant no. 6 has filed the present application being G.A. No. 3 of 2022 in C.S. No. 28 of 2019 praying for deletion of its name from the case being C.S. No. 28 of 2019. Defendant no. 6 says that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against the defendant no. 6 and the defendant no. 6 being the Company, an independent and separate juristic entity, is not bound by any partition and is squarely covered by the Companies Act, 2013.
2. Mr. Reetobrata Mitra representing the defendant no. 6 submitted that the defendant no. 6 is an independent juristic entity in which the plaintiff never held any shares, nor is there any pleading in the plaint that the plaintiff held any shares in the defendant no. 6 at any point of time. He submits that there is nothing on record in so far as the defendant no. 6 is concern being the part of the family company, assets, properties etc.
3. Mr. Mitra submitted that the defendant no. 6 cannot under any circumstance be treated to be assets of the family or the shareholders of such company. He says that if it is construed that the shares of the defendant no. 6 is held closely by all family members, belonging to Rathhi famil
The main legal point established is that the court has jurisdiction to entertain claims related to family assets and properties, and the burden of proof lies on the party asserting self-acquired prop....
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....
There would be presumption of jointness in a family governed by Hindu law.
The court affirmed that partition of family properties had occurred prior to 1942, establishing individual ownership rights over properties acquired post-partition, thereby negating claims of joint f....
Fraud claims are not within the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, allowing civil suits to proceed despite jurisdictional bars under the RDDBFI Act.
The court established that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting the existence of a joint family and joint properties, which was not met by the plaintiffs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiffs must establish the existence of a cause of action and entitlement to seek the reliefs as sought in the plaint. Failure to do so....
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.
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
