Must Read

Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC477

By
Image
Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary  Introduction  In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951. Facts The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court.  The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Appellant Contentions  MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses.  The Government o
Post a Comment

Moro Vishwanath v. Ganesh Vithal, 1873

By

 Moro Vishwanath v. Ganesh Vithal, 1873

This is an appeal from the decision of first Subordinate Judge of Ratnagiri.

Fact

The respondent is the 5th lineal descendant and the appellant is the 4th lineal descendant of Udhav (the original owner of the property).

Issue

  1. Whether the respondent (plaintiff) is entitled to ask for partition of ancestral property or not?

  • Ans- No, because plaintiff is the 5th lineal descendant of the original owner.

Ratio and Observation

  1. JUSTICE WEST
    • No partition may take place after fourth descendants from common ancestor. 
    • The special Sapinda relationship ends with the fourth descendant.
  2. JUSTICE NANABHAI HARIDAS
    • No partition suit can at all lie between the appellant and the respondent.

  • The lower court was erred in holding that the property in dispute was joint ancestral property. In the present case, the respondent was not a co-parcener being the 5th descendant and therefore he had no right to ask for partition in the coparcenary property.
  • The doctrine of ancestral property vested by birth in one’s son, grandson, and great- grandson. This capacity does not extend beyond the fourth descent.

Judgment

The appeal allowed and the court held that the respondent had no right to ask partition being the 5th descendant or coparcener of an ancestral property.

Summary

A partition cannot be demanded by one more than four degrees removed from the last owner of the property not acquirer of original owner of the property.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

By
Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

By
Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more