Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Several cases reinforce that possession obtained without legal backing or after court decrees may not be sustainable, and courts tend to uphold legal possession and family rights over land ["KHETI RAM VS STATE OF H. P. - Himachal Pradesh"], ["State of Uttar Pradesh VS Rajdeo Singh - Allahabad"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Gurdarshan Lal vs Punjab State Through The Secretary Rehabilitation Department, Punjab, Chandigarh - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["Santosh (deceased) VS Baljit Singh (deceased) through his LRs - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["Dhan Singh VS State of Haryana - Supreme Court"]- ["KHETI RAM VS STATE OF H. P. - Himachal Pradesh"]- ["State of Uttar Pradesh VS Rajdeo Singh - Allahabad"]- ["PARMANAND VS STATE - Allahabad"]- ["Ram Kishore VS State of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand"]- ["KAUSHALIYA vs JODHA RAM - Supreme Court"]- ["SRI RAMAPPA vs SMT NAGAMMA - Karnataka"]- ["Raj Kumar VS Samphal, S/o. Sh. Tirhu - Himachal Pradesh"]- ["Bahadur Singh VS Govt. of NCT of Delhi - Delhi"]
In the realm of Indian legal disputes, queries about specific judgements like the ram kilady judgement often arise from inheritance battles, property rights, or family succession issues. Many individuals search for clarity on cases involving names like Ram Kilady (or variations such as Ram Kilya), hoping to understand outcomes related to Hindu family property division. However, a thorough review of available legal documents reveals no explicit case titled Ram Kilady Judgement. This blog post dives into the findings, highlights relevant principles from closely related rulings, and integrates insights from associated court records to provide a comprehensive overview. Note: This is general information based on public records and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for personalized guidance.
When investigating the ram kilady judgement, the primary documents examined do not contain a direct reference to a case by that name. Instead, the closest match emerges from document MST. BHAGWATI VS MST. RAM KALI - 1939 0 Supreme(SC) 14, which addresses a Hindu succession dispute over property rights. This case explores whether inherited property is held as joint family property or as tenants in common, key issues in many inheritance quarrels. MST. BHAGWATI VS MST. RAM KALI - 1939 0 Supreme(SC) 14
Key takeaways from the analysis:- No explicit Ram Kilady or Ram Kilya judgement appears in the reviewed materials.- Document MST. BHAGWATI VS MST. RAM KALI - 1939 0 Supreme(SC) 14 involves daughters inheriting property after predeceased brothers and father, litigating title and prior judgements' effects (res judicata).- Other files, such as Topkhanadesh Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited VS Kalu - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 3039, Kamlesh Kumar VS Board of Revenue Lucknow - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 2431, and Nathu VS State Of U. P. - 1979 0 Supreme(SC) 17, cover procedural land revenue matters or criminal appeals, unrelated to succession. Topkhanadesh Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited VS Kalu - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 3039Kamlesh Kumar VS Board of Revenue Lucknow - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 2431Nathu VS State Of U. P. - 1979 0 Supreme(SC) 17
This absence underscores the challenge of pinpointing niche cases without full access to comprehensive databases like Indian Kanoon or Manupatra. Yet, the principles in MST. BHAGWATI VS MST. RAM KALI - 1939 0 Supreme(SC) 14 offer valuable guidance for similar scenarios.
Hindu succession law, governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (amended in 2005), frequently intersects with property disputes. In MST. BHAGWATI VS MST. RAM KALI - 1939 0 Supreme(SC) 14, the court scrutinized:- Inheritance rights: Property passed to daughters post predeceased male heirs.- Joint vs. Tenants in Common: Determining if family property remains undivided (joint) or separately held.- Res Judicata: Prior decisions binding future claims, preventing relitigation. MST. BHAGWATI VS MST. RAM KALI - 1939 0 Supreme(SC) 14
The judgement states: the property was inherited by the daughters after the predeceased brothers and their predeceased father, and the subsequent litigation about whether the property was joint family property or held as tenants in common. This highlights how courts assess coparcenary rights under Hindu law, typically favoring equal shares among Class I heirs post-2005 amendments.
For those querying ram kilady judgement, if it pertains to such family property battles, these tenets apply generally. Courts often rule that self-acquired property devolves differently from ancestral joint family assets.
Supporting documents like Topkhanadesh Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited VS Kalu - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 3039 focus on land revenue proceedings, while Kamlesh Kumar VS Board of Revenue Lucknow - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 2431 involves a remand in revenue cases—neither touching inheritance. Nathu VS State Of U. P. - 1979 0 Supreme(SC) 17 addresses a criminal appeal, far removed from civil succession. These illustrate the breadth of Indian judiciary dockets but confirm no Ram Kilady link. Topkhanadesh Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited VS Kalu - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 3039Kamlesh Kumar VS Board of Revenue Lucknow - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 2431Nathu VS State Of U. P. - 1979 0 Supreme(SC) 17
Broadening the lens, other sources reveal patterns in property-related conflicts, potentially echoing ram kilady themes:
Water Channel Feud Turning Violent (Tek Chand vs State Of Haryana - 2025 Supreme(Online)(PH) 2479): A dispute over fields adjacent to those of Tek Chand, Neki Ram, Surta Ram, and Ganeshi Ram (sons of Puri Ram) escalated. The fields of Tek Chand, Neki Ram, Surta Ram and Ganeshi Ram who are sons of Puri Ram are situated adjacent to our fields. A water channel passes through our fields... Armed with weapons, parties clashed, leading to murder charges under IPC Sections 148, 302, etc. The court prioritized ocular testimony: The court emphasizes the primacy of ocular testimony over medical evidence... Convictions modified based on individual culpability and common intention. Tek Chand vs State Of Haryana - 2025 Supreme(Online)(PH) 2479
Dowry and Harassment Case (Pankaj Kumar Chandra VS Rameshwar Chandra and Ors - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 1358): Involving Umendra Ram forcing illicit relations, with seizures of kerosene and matchbox. Highlights criminal overlays on family property pressures. Pankaj Kumar Chandra VS Rameshwar Chandra and Ors - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 1358
Naming Disputes in Testimony (RUPA RAM AND ANR. Vs. STATE - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 14835): PW-14 Kaniya and PW-15 Peera Ram @ Pura Ram's statements improved, omitting Magha Ram initially. Further, there is an improvement in the statement of PW-14 Kaniya and PW-15 Peera Ram @ Pura Ram... RUPA RAM AND ANR. Vs. STATE - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 14835
These cases show how property rows (water channels, inheritance) can lead to violence, with courts dissecting witness credibility and roles.
Additional records touch recovery and service laws, indirectly relevant:
Salary Recovery Principles (JANKI PRASAD VS STATE OF U. P. - 2012 Supreme(All) 2742): Citing Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar: if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation... (b) if such excess payment was made... subsequently found to be erroneous. Equity bars recovery sans fraud. JANKI PRASAD VS STATE OF U. P. - 2012 Supreme(All) 2742
Panchayat Fee Collection (SUBHASH TIWARI VS STATE OF U. P. - 2010 Supreme(All) 436): Government orders on check posts for tractors/trucks, no cabinet approval needed under Article 166(3). SUBHASH TIWARI VS STATE OF U. P. - 2010 Supreme(All) 436
Pension Withholding (Rudra Nand Mishra VS Bihar State Electricity Board - 2009 Supreme(Pat) 533): Reduction perverse without evidence; even reduction of 5% pension was a very serious matter... Rudra Nand Mishra VS Bihar State Electricity Board - 2009 Supreme(Pat) 533
Eviction and Rent (SHRI RAM NIWAS VS IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MORADABAD - 2007 Supreme(All) 638): Suits maintainable under Order II Rule 3 CPC. SHRI RAM NIWAS VS IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MORADABAD - 2007 Supreme(All) 638
Specific Performance (Hari VS Mahadu Kerba Tekale - 2006 Supreme(Bom) 953): Appellate power to extend deposit time for decrees. Hari VS Mahadu Kerba Tekale - 2006 Supreme(Bom) 953
These reinforce procedural fairness in property matters, akin to succession litigation.
While no ram kilady judgement surfaces directly:1. Focus on Hindu Law Basics: Review joint family property via precedents like MST. BHAGWATI VS MST. RAM KALI - 1939 0 Supreme(SC) 14.2. Document Thoroughly: Res judicata binds parties—prior rulings matter.3. Seek Original Sources: Use legal databases for full texts.4. Holistic View: Property disputes often blend civil (inheritance) and criminal (assaults) elements, as in Tek Chand vs State Of Haryana - 2025 Supreme(Online)(PH) 2479.
Final Note: Indian courts emphasize equity and evidence. For inheritance woes, principles from these docs guide generally, but professional advice is essential. If your query mirrors these, explore Hindu Succession Act amendments for daughters' coparcenary rights.
References:- MST. BHAGWATI VS MST. RAM KALI - 1939 0 Supreme(SC) 14: Hindu succession core.- Tek Chand vs State Of Haryana - 2025 Supreme(Online)(PH) 2479: Property violence.- Others as cited.
#RamKiladyJudgement, #HinduSuccession, #PropertyLawIndia
In order to prove the issues, the plaintiff examined Nirmal Singh (PW1), himself appeared as PW2, Karam Singh (PW3), Arjan Khanna (PW4) and tendered into evidence death certificate of Ram Rakha (Exhibit P1), site plan (Exhibit P2), mutation (Exhibit P3), copy of judgement dated 22.05.2003 (Exhibit P4 ... Vide this Regular Second Appeal, the judgement and decree dated 30.11.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hoshiarpur as well as judgement and decree dated 07.09.2015 passed by learned Additional Distric....
The present regular second appeal was allowed vide judgment dated 08.10.2003, the judgement and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court were set aside and those passed by the Trial Court were restored. ... of Jot Ram. ... family of the plaintiff, Jot Ram. ... It was further stated by him that Chandgi Ram, Deep Chand, Ramji Lal, Bhai Ram, Jai Singh and Mange, Numberdar were present at the time of adoption. He also stated that after the adoption his parentage had changed to Jot Ram an....
It is more because of development of law through pronouncement of Court’s judgement that guidelines for recording of dying declarations have been settled. ... Shiv Ram was kept under observance in the hospital. ... After collecting the medico- legal reports of Shiv Ram, his wife Omkali and daughter Bimla, the Investigating Officer also took the endorsement and signatures of Omkali and Bimla on the statement of Shiv Ram being Ex. PF/1. ... As per the statement of PW1, wife and daughter of deceased Shiv Ram#HL_EN....
In Kalu Ram v. ... JUDGEMENT ... Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. :- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21-2-2000 of Sessions Judge, Chamba in Session trial No. 15 of 1999 convicting the appellants-accused under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for ... Paro daughter of Sant Ram was engaged to accused Chet Ram and her age at the relevant time was about 15 years. PW. Ram Singh did not want that PW-5 should marry accused Chet Ram. The p....
JUDGE, HOSADURGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.7.2000 PASSED IN OS.NO.390/1994 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), HOSADURGA. ... KRISHNAMURTHY M.R., ADVOCATE FOR R8 R3, R4, R5, R6 AND R7 ARE SERVED VIDE ORDER DATED 15.10.2025, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.12.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.33/2010 ON THE FILE OF ITINERARAY SENIOR CIVIL
C A V Judgement Per , Rajani Dubey, J. 1. ... Since Rajkumari had no children, accused Umendra Ram was forcing her into illicit relations with him in order to have children. ... On production by accused Umendra Ram, two jerry cans, one containing kerosene and the other empty, and a matchbox were seized as per seizure memo (Ex.P/8). ... After one year of their marriage, accused Rameshwar Prasad Chandra and Umendra Ram had been harassing and assaulting the deceased Rajkumari in connection with demand of dowry and demandin....
It is submitted that Ramu Ram in the said agreement claimed that he purchased the suit property from Jodha Ram and sale deed was executed between them. ... In the Contempt Petition, Jodha Ram and others have filed I.A. ... Litigation started between the father and daughter namely Jodha Ram and Kaushaliya. Smt. Kaushaliya filed a suit for injunction against her father Jodha Ram with respect to some of the properties. Jodha Ram – father filed a counter claim. Smt. Kaushaliya lost before ....
Further, there is an improvement in the statement of PW-14 Kaniya and PW-15 Peera Ram @ Pura Ram as in their statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., they have not named Magha Ram. ... Teejo Devi, PW-14 Kaniya and PW-15 Peera Ram @ Pura Ram as far as the case of the appellant Magha Ram is concerned. 22. We further note that the injuries suffered by Smt. ... Teejo Devi shows that the name of appellant Magha Ram has not been written despite the fact that Magha....
The fields of Tek Chand, Neki Ram, Surta Ram and Ganeshi Ram who are sons of Puri Ram are situated adjacent to our fields. A water channel passes through our fields leading to the fields of Tek Chand etc. ... In the meantime, four sons of Puri Ram namely Tek Chand and Neki Ram carrying gandasi', Surta Ram carrying lathi' and Ganesha Ram carrying jaili' along with three sons of Tek Chand namely Beeru, Krishan and Nanhu who were carrying lathi' and two....
In 1988, out of natural love and affection, Beli Ram executed a registered Will dated 12.12.1988 bequeathing the suit land in favour of the plaintiff Tota Ram. Beli Ram died on 11.07.1994. ... Beli Ram was the owner in possession of the land in dispute. Tota Ram, plaintiff is the nephew of Beli Ram, being his brother's son. According to the plaintiff, he had been cultivating the land in question for more than three decades and had also been taking care of Beli Ram. ......
In case of Syed Abdul Qadir and others v. State of Bihar and others, 2009 (3) SCC 475, it was held in para 57 that “ if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. It was further held in para 58 that “The relief against recovery is granted by Courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity,....
The judgement in Ram Gopal’s case (supra) is, thus, clearly distinguishable. In the present case the direction of the State Government cannot be said to be against any legislative policy contained in any Section of the 1961 act.
Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Ors.) has held that even reduction of 5% pension was a very serious matter for a Government servant in the evening of his life having no other source of income. The Supreme Court in its judgement (Ram Dayal Rai V/s.
Small Causes Court (supra) was held per incurium and was overruled as is clear from para 10 of the report. The Division Bench after taking into consideration the relevant judgments on the point held that such a suit is maintainable in view of Rule 3 of Order II of the Code of Civil Procedure. The judgement delivered in the case of Ram Chandra v. Judge. In this view of the matter, the order of remand passed by the Court below cannot be sustained.
In the matter of B. C. Shah (supra), learned single Judge of this Court has referred to the earlier judgement of this Court in the matter of L. P. Jain (supra). In this judgement also, the judgement of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mahanth Ram Das (supra) was cited before this Court. The observations of the Supreme Court were noted as : "32.
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
