Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
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
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MR. J. C. DOSHI, J
YUSUFBHAI WALIBHAI PATEL & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
ZUBEDABEN ABBASBHAI PATEL & ORS. – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The captioned batch of revision arise from the orders passed below Exhibit-33 and Exhibit-44 in Special Civil Suit No.132 of 2021 by the 21st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara.
1.1 The two captioned Civil Revision Applications arise from the common order dated 11.10.2022, rejecting the application filed by defendant Nos.1 to 4 and defendant Nos.6 to 11 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) for rejection of the plaint.
1.2 The captioned three Appeal from Orders arise from the order dated 02.02.2024 passed below Exhibit-5, partly allowing the application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of ‘the Code’ by the original plaintiff.
1.3 The above referred CRAs and AOs since were tagged, Honourable Chief Justice by order dated 24.03.2025, placed the AOs along with th
Inheritance rights under Mohammedan Law are individual, arising only upon death, eliminating claims of joint family property made prematurely based on shared assumptions.
The court ruled that while joint family properties are not recognized under Muslim Law as in Hindu law, acquisitions through joint efforts can establish joint ownership if sufficiently proven.
Properties cannot be presumed joint family properties unless proven to derive from sufficient income or surplus of ancestral properties.
Minors cannot be deprived of their ancestral property rights through relinquishment by a parent; such actions require explicit consent of the minors involved.
The family settlement, though unregistered, operated as estoppel against the signatories and partitioned the suit properties among the plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiff was estopped from....
The court affirmed that property settlements among Mohammadans are permissible under the Karnataka Stamp Act, and that the absence of explicit prohibition in Shariat Law does not invalidate such tran....
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