Civil Law  - Immovable property

Alienation of the immovable property - Suit filed - Trial court held - Suit land ancestral property of plaintiffs - Defendant No.1 governed by custom in matter of alienation under that custom ordinarily ancestral immovable property is inalienable - Except for legal necessity or with consent of male lineal descendants - First appellate court held - Land not ancestral property - No proof - Land had descended from the father of plaintiff - High Court set aside judgment of first appellate court - Restored of trial court - Appeal - A family settlement is not a transfer of property - Impugned judgment and order of High court set aside - Order of first appellate court restored - Appeal allowed - No costs.

Found In:  Topic Index, Imp. Decision, Judgement

Indian Penal Code,1860  - Section 302 , Section 201 , Section 34

Conviction and sentence - Strained relationship between deceased on one side - His mother, sisters and husband of sister on other side - Relation to ancestral property - All appellants attacked - Deceased and his wife caused their death - In order to shield themselves - Shifted dead bodies and dismantled motorcycle used by deceased - Circumstantial evidence - Not lead towards their guilt - There is overwhelming evidence - Prove beyond reasonable doubt - Motive with other accused to kill deceased - Held - Motive, recoveries and abscondence immediately after occurrence - Point out guilt - Criminal appeal by circumstantial evidence accused allowed - Criminal appeal filed by another dismissed.

Found In:  Judgement

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955  - Section 16

Legitimacy of children - Void and voidable marriage - Suit filed - Trial Court properties were not self-acquired but ancestral properties - Third plaintiff was legally wedded wife of first defendant - Plaintiffs and first defendant - Entitled to 1/4th share each in all suit properties - High Court - First plaintiff, second plaintiff and first defendant - Entitled to 1/3rd share each in suit properties - Claim of third plaintiff - Second, third and fourth defendants - Rejected - Appeal - Whether illegitimate children are entitled to a share in coparcenary property - Whether their share is limited only to self-acquired property of their parents under Section 16(3) - section 16(3) does not impose any restriction on property right of children born from void marriages - Limiting it to property of their parents - Such children will have a right to - Property of their parents - Self acquired or ancestral - Matter referred for reconsideration by larger Bench.

Found In:  Judgement

The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956  - Section 7

Suit for partition to get the one half share in the suit properties of adoptive father - Trial Court and lower Appellate Court holding that the suit properties were ancestral and that plaintiff was validly adopted by his adoptive father and he became coparcener in the family of adoptive father - Suit decreed for 1/3rd share in the suit properties to plaintiff - Finding regarding adoption of plaintiff confirmed by Ld. Single Judge - Ld. Single Judge further holding that lower appellate Court not justified in issuing a direction that plaintiff be given the land in village and adoptive mother would not get any share in that land - Appeal against - Presence of adoptive mother in the ceremonies of adoption was only as a mute spectator and not as an active participant - None of the witnesses stating that adoptive father had consulted with adoptive mother or taken her in confidence and the later had given her consent or agreed to the adoption of plaintiff or that she had taken prominent part in the adoption ceremonies - No evidence on record to prove that adoptive mother was a signatory to the adoption deed or that she was present at the time of execution and/or registration of adoption deed - No evidence to show that after execution of the deed of adoption, adoptive mother was made aware of the same or a copy thereof was made available to her - It cannot be assumed that adoptive mother was aware of the execution and registration of the deed of adoption and she deliberately omitted to challenge the same - Consent of the adoptive mother not obtained as per mandate of the proviso to Section 7 of the Act of 1956 - Held that adoptive mother succeeded in proving that the adoption of plaintiff by his adoptive father was not valid - Suit filed by plaintiff not maintainable - Impugned orders of the lower Courts set aside - Suit dismissed.

Found In:  Judgement