Posts

Showing posts with the label Family Law

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
Read more

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 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

By
 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

By
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