Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
BIBHU DATTA GURU
Amrika Bai, W/o Ranjit Lodhi – Appellant
Versus
Bhagwati Bai, W/o Dhanku Lodhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal challenging earlier court judgments. (Para 1 , 2 , 6) |
| 2. factual background of property and inheritance. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. rights under section 6 of hindu succession act. (Para 5 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. invalidity of oral partition and necessity for legal recognition. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. burden of proof for customary divorce lies on the defendants. (Para 20) |
| 6. conclusion favoring appellant's right to inheritance. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 7. final decree to be drawn for property share. (Para 23) |
JUDGMENT :
Bibhu Datta Guru, J.
1. By the present appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant/plaintiff has challenged the impugned judgment and decree dated 14.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Circuit Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, in Civil Appeal No. 13-A/2008 (Amrika Bai & Ors. v. Bhagwati Bai & Ors.), arising out of the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), in Civil Suit No. 35-A/2006 (Amrika Bai & Ors. v. Dhanuk & Ors.), whereby the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff/appella
Daughters are coparceners with equal rights to property by birth under Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, and unrecognized oral partitions do not affect these rights.
Daughters born before 1956 are entitled to coparcenary rights under the amended Hindu Succession Act, 2005, irrespective of their marital status.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that unless prior partition is established, there shall be a presumption that the property is joint family property, and a family arrangement in th....
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.
The court affirmed that under the Hindu Succession Act, daughters do not inherit coparcenary property prior to the 2005 amendment, and the plaintiff's title was upheld against the defendant's claims.
Daughters have the right to claim a share in ancestral property as coparceners under Sec. 6(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, but their entitlement is limited by the proviso to Sec. 6(1) based on th....
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
