Judge N. Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court found the property to be general family property until it was distributed under Article 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. The court, which partially granted the appeal, overturned the decision of the Court of Appeals, with a quarter of the profit to the first defendant and the remaining profit after the sale of the property to the fifth defendant by the certificate of sale to the second defendant. Issued a provisional order acknowledging. The fourth defendant ordered the court to make a final decision within three months. The assets of the proceedings are part of the property of the ancestors, all of which belong to the great-grandfather with three sons, one of whom was the plaintiff’s grandfather in the case of the plaintiff. Plaintiffs alleged that his father, the first defendant, and the second defendant of the fourth defendant were sisters who were entitled to a share of the litigation planning assets.

 The complaint was filed in court and was dismissed by the court.

 The first appeal was filed with the First Circuit Court, which agreed with the Circuit Court’s decision.

 A second appeal was filed in the High Court, which found that: Judgment against Uttam. Saubhag Singh [Uttamv. Saubhag Singh, (2016) 4 SCC 68: (2016) 2 SCC (Civ) 545], mentioned by respondents, does not apply to current facts. In Uttam [Uttamv. Saubhag Singh, (2016) 4 SCC 68: (2016) 2 SCC (Civ) 545] The applicant claimed to share the common property of his grandfather, who died in 1973 before the applicant was born. Inheritance began in 1973 after the Hindu Inheritance Act of 1956 came into force. The court examined the inheritance of the applicant’s grandfather and the impact of Article 8 of the 1956 Hindu Succession Act. In light of these facts, after the court distributed the property under Article 8 of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, hearings were held on the property of the general family in the hands of various inherited persons. I was asked when it was gone. Therefore, it turned out that the applicant was not an accomplice to his grandfather’s share. “

Leave a Comment

× Need legal help?