Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
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
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, P. B. BALAJI
Makmutha Beevi (Died) – Appellant
Versus
Mohamed Meeran (Died) – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the preliminary decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.54 of 2004, dated 29.09.2016, on the file of the IV Additional District Court, Tirunelveli.)
JUDGMENT
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J. & P.B.BALAJI, J.
1. The first defendant in a suit for partition is the appellant before us. After the demise of the first defendant, his legal representatives have been impleaded as appellants 2 and 3.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the ranking before the trial Court.
3. The suit was originally filed by Mohamed Meeran and others, seeking declaration of 234/448 share of the plaintiffs 2 to 12 in 6 items of the suit property. The case of the plaintiffs before the trial Court was that the suit property belonged to one Kadhar Mydeen Rowther, the husband of the first defendant. The said Kadhar Mydeen Rowther died intest
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Doctrine of Return in determining the share of the wife in a partition suit, and the principle that the Doctrine of Return c....
Female heirs are entitled to a share in family property under Muslim law, and a partition suit must include all necessary parties to be valid.
Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act grants daughters equal rights to inheritance in coparcenary properties, which necessitates modification of prior partition decrees that fail to account for such ....
Trial court's failure to frame issues on gift deed validity led to erroneous decree, misapplying inheritance laws under Mohammedan Law.
Married daughters are entitled to a share in joint family properties, and their marital status does not negate their legal rights to inheritance as established by the Hindu Succession Act.
Rights to ancestral property include equitable shares among all heirs, correcting erroneous allocations in prior decrees.
A son who has previously relinquished his rights in joint family property is entitled to a share in his father's separate property upon the father's intestate death, as per Section 8 of the Hindu Suc....
The amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act grants daughters equal rights as coparceners, allowing them to claim shares in ancestral properties irrespective of their birth date.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Hindu Succession Act and the rights of daughters as coparceners, as interpreted in the decision of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh....
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