Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Narendra Kumar Vyas
Ragmania Died Through Lrs Kariman Das S/o Sunder Das – Appellant
Versus
Jagmet S/o Baigadas – Respondent
Certainly! Please provide the legal document content so I can analyze it and generate the key points with the appropriate references.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. second appeal procedure and questions of law. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. (Para 5 , 6 , 12) |
| 3. arguments on inheritance rights of daughters. (Para 13 , 14 , 28) |
| 4. application of mitakshara law based on the date of death. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 30) |
| 5. clarification of inheritance under hindu law and its amendments. (Para 22 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. final conclusion on appeal dismissal. (Para 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT :
1. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2014 2025.10.13 +0530 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Sarguja, Ambikapur in Civil Appeal No. 15-A/2011 affirming the judgment and decree dated 26.12.2008 passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Surguja in Civil Suit No. 181-A /2005.
3. This appeal was admitted by this Court on the following substantial question of law on 02.04.2025;-
“(2) Whether the finding recorded by both the Courts below that the plaintiff and the defendant are not governed by Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is justified or not?
“Whether the plaintiff is entitiled to inherit the suit property by way of succession if the partition has been taken place prior to 1956?
(a) The plaintiff an
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
