ANAR DEVI Vs. PARMESHWARI DEVI
LAWS(SC)-2006-9-99
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on September 18,2006

ANAR DEVI Appellant
VERSUS
PARMESHWARI DEVI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

EAST END DWELLING CO. LTD. V. FINSBURY BOROUGH COUNCIL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BOMBAY V. PANDURANG VINAYAK CHAPHALKAR AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
GURUPAD KHANDAPPA MAGDUM VS. HIRABAI KHANDAPPA MAGDUM [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

VINEETA SHARMA VS. RAKESH SHARMA [LAWS(SC)-2020-8-11] [REFERRED TO]
MADANGOPAL VS. SAGAR @ BHARATKUMAR [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-8-83] [REFERRED TO]
D. RANGANATHA RAO VS. D. SUJATHA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-8-147] [REFERRED TO]
SATHI DEVI VS. UMA [LAWS(KER)-2016-11-73] [REFERRED TO]
R V PADMAVATHI VS. GANGARAPU SUDARSANA CHOWDARY [LAWS(APH)-2011-7-85] [REFERRED TO]
JUTHEL SAHU VS. JAGJEEVAN SAHU [LAWS(CHH)-2015-5-26] [REFERRED TO]
DANAMMA@SUMAN SURPUR AND ANOTHER VS. AMAN AND OTHER [LAWS(SC)-2018-2-103] [REFERRED TO]
UTTAM VS. SAUBHAG SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-2013-10-166] [REFERRED TO]
MUKUND VS. SMT. SUKLAKSHANA BOKARE AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2017-5-42] [REFERRED TO]
DADA VS. BHAGAJI [LAWS(BOM)-2021-8-236] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA GUPTA VS. RAJINDER NATH AND CO HUF [LAWS(DLH)-2013-2-232] [REFERRED TO]
R.C.SUBRAMANIAN VS. S.SULOCHANA [LAWS(MAD)-2019-11-487] [REFERRED TO]
SWAMY VS. THIMMAMMA [LAWS(KAR)-2013-4-64] [REFERRED TO]
BASHYAM ANJAMMA VS. NARRA SATYANARAYANA [LAWS(APH)-2013-4-62] [REFERRED TO]
S SESHACHALAM VS. S DEENADAYALAN [LAWS(MAD)-2009-8-446] [REFERRED TO]
CASA GRAND GARDEN CITY BUILDERS PVT LTD. VS. K.S. PREMA REDDY [LAWS(KAR)-2023-1-846] [REFERRED TO]
M. KRISHNAMOORTHY VS. K. PONDEEPANKAR [LAWS(MAD)-2017-4-12] [REFERRED TO]
DUNDAPPA VS. SMT. SUNDRAWWA [LAWS(KAR)-2017-8-35] [REFERRED TO]
MUNITHAYAMMA AND ORS. VS. NANJAPPA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2016-3-108] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH AND ORS. VS. PHULAVATI AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-10-81] [REFERRED TO]
SMT TULSA BAI VS. SMT KAMLABAI ALIAS MUNNIBAI [LAWS(MPH)-2017-8-26] [REFERRED TO]
DIGVIJAY SINGH VS. SANT RAM [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-7-100] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.)Leave granted.
(3.)A suit was filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer by the respondents for partition of suit properties claiming two-third share therein. In the plaint, it was plaintiffs' clear-cut case that the partition suit was filed for partition of notional share of Nagar Mal. Undisputedly, the suit properties were ancestral one in the hands of Nagar Mal, who adopted one Nemi Chand as his son, and after adoption both of them constituted a Mitakshara coparcenary under Hindu Law. Further it was undisputed that Nagar Mal died in the year 1989 intestate in the state of jointness with his adopted son leaving behind him, his adopted son Nemi Chand and the plaintiffs, who were his two daughters.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.