Posts

Showing posts with the label Family Law

Must Read

M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, 1964

Image
M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, (1964) 6 SCR 642, 651 This case interpretation/case summary is written by Ms. Swati Sharma a student at the Faculty of Law (Delhi University). If you also want to publish your articles or case interpretations/summaries, send your work to  niyamskanoon09@gmail.com . Case Details PETITIONER:  MRS. M. N. CLUBWALA AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: FIDA HUSSAIN SAHEB AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/02/1964 BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R. SUBBARAO, K. CITATION: 1965 AIR 610 1964 SCR (6) 642 Introduction   The case of M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb (1964) under the Delhi Rent Control Act is a landmark judgment that clarifies the distinction between a lease and a license and the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The primary issue in this case was whether the agreements between the landlord (M.N. Clubwala) and the shopkeepers (Fida Hussain Saheb) created a lease or a license.  Facts of the Case M.N. Clubwala (Landlord) used his building as market by
Post a Comment
Read more

Moro Vishwanath v. Ganesh Vithal, 1873

 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 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 JUSTICE WEST No partition may take place after fourth descendants from common ancestor.  The special Sapinda relationship ends with the fourth descendant. 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 anc
Post a Comment
Read more

Muhammad Husain Khan v. Babu Kishva Nandan Sahai, 1993

 Muhammad Husain Khan v. Babu Kishva Nandan Sahai, 1993 Introduction This is an appeal from a decree of the Allahabad High Court. The respondent (plaintiff) claimed for a possession of a village. The appellant challenged the validity of a will. Character Ganesh Prasad- Father Bindeshri Prasad- Son Giribala - Son's wife  Facts Ganesh Prasad (who inherited property from his maternal grandfather. He made a will that such property will go to his son (Bindeshri Prasad) for his life and on his death it was to vest in his widow (GiriBala). In execution of a decree for money obtained by a creditor against Bindeshri Prasad the village was sold by auction. Bindeshri Prasad (son) brought the suit on the ground that the sale was vitiated by fraud. He died on 25th December 1926. Thereafter, Giribala was substituted as plaintiff by an application. She also asked for leave to amend the plaint and prayed that if the sale be held to be binding upon her husband, it should be declared to be inopera
Post a Comment
Read more

Smt. Dipo v. Wassan Singh, 1983

Image
 Smt. Dipo v. Wassan Singh 1983 Introduction The present appeal by Special Leave Petition before Supreme Court was raised by the plaintiff over an Order of the Punjab & Haryana HC. The Court in this case (Smt. Dipo v. Wassan Singh) had elaborately discussed the position of an ancestral property after partition. Facts In this case the appellant, Smt. Dipo (plaintiff) filed a suit to recover possession of the properties which belonged to her brother, Bua Singh, who died in 1952. She claimed to be her nearest heir of Bua Singh. The suit was contested by the defendants who were the sons of Ganda Singh, paternal uncle of Bua Singh on the ground that Smt. Dipo was not the sister of Bua Singh and even if she was the sister, the defendants were preferential heirs according to custom, as the whole of the land was ancestral in the hands of Bua Singh. Case History   Subordinate Judge – Most of the suit properties were ancestral in hands of Bua Singh while a few were not ancestral. According
Post a Comment
Read more