Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Saroj Salkan VS Huma Singh...
2025 5 Supreme 540 : The judgment in case No. CS(OS) 683/2007 (appealed as RFA (OS) No. 51/2016) deals with a partition suit filed by a daughter under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, where the defendants denied the existence of a Hindu Undivided Family and the plaintiff’s relationship to the ancestral property. The Court discusses the applicability of Order XII Rule 6 CPC and cites several precedents on partition suits and denial of relationship, notably: • Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India, (2000) 7 SCC 120 – on the scope of Order XII Rule 6 CPC; • Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao, 2023 SCC Online SC 871 – on dismissal of suit under Order XII Rule 6; • Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Others, (2020) 9 SCC 1 – on retroactive effect of the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. These judgments are directly relevant to a plaintiff seeking partition of ancestral property while the defendant disputes the familial relationship.Checking relevance for Angadi Chandranna VS Shankar...
2025 5 Supreme 99 : The judgment explains that in a suit for partition of alleged ancestral property, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the property is joint‑family (ancestral) property; there is no presumption merely because a joint Hindu family exists. After a valid partition, the divided share becomes self‑acquired unless it can be shown that the share remains ancestral for the male issue, as held in Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar, (1987) 1 SCC 204. Consequently, a defendant’s denial of any relationship with the plaintiff must be rebutted with evidence establishing the plaintiff’s co‑parcener status and the source of funds used to acquire the suit property.Checking relevance for SHYAM NARAYAN PRASAD VS KRISHNA PRASAD...
2018 6 Supreme 476 : The Court held that the share obtained by a coparcener on partition of ancestral property remains ancestral property with respect to his male issue. Consequently, the plaintiff‑sons and grandson of the defendant have a direct right in the property and the suit for partition is maintainable even though the defendant denied any relationship. The judgment cites precedents such as C. Krishna Prasad v. C.I.T. (1975) 1 SCC 160, M. Yogendra v. Leelamma (2009) 15 SCC 184, and Rohit Chauhan v. Surinder Singh (2013) 9 SCC 419, which affirm that descendants acquire an interest in the ancestral property at birth and can enforce partition against a party denying kinship.Checking relevance for Vitthalrao Marotirao Navkhare VS Nanibai (Dead), through LRs. ...
2024 4 Supreme 532 : The judgment (case No. 00100079262) held that under Hindu law there is a presumption of jointness in a family. Even though the defendants denied any familial relationship with the plaintiff and claimed the garage business was a separate venture, the court rejected that denial, found the properties to be joint family property purchased from the joint business, and allowed the plaintiff’s suit for partition. The appellate court set aside the erroneous observations of the lower court and upheld the presumption of jointness, thereby granting partition in favour of the plaintiff.Checking relevance for Rohit Chauhan VS Surinder Singh...
2013 5 Supreme 666 : In the Supreme Court judgment (cited as [00100053075]), the plaintiff filed a suit for partition of ancestral property alleging that the defendant denied any familial relationship. The Court held that property allotted to the father in partition was separate until the plaintiff’s birth, after which it became coparcenary property. Consequently, any alienation by the father without the Karta’s legal necessity was illegal, null and void. This case directly addresses a partition suit where the defendant disputes the plaintiff’s relation to the ancestral property.
