Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment, on ancestral property, dating back to the year 1954.
While interpreting the provisions of Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the Courts must bear the objectives and purposes for which the statute was enacted.
We often get to hear the term ‘ancestral property’, but the exact meaning of the term remains unknown to most of us.
Senior Citizens have every right to protect themselves and in case of ill-treatment and abuse by their children/ legal heirs, can approach the Maintenance Tribunal for their eviction from their property of any kind, which includes both Ancestral as well as Self Acquired Property.
Chhattisgarh High Court: A Division Bench of Goutam Bhaduri and Deepak Kumar Tiwari JJ. entitled father-in-law to pay maintenance to widowed daughter-in-law
Bombay High Court: Mangesh S. Patil, J., decided on the following questions for consideration: Whether in a suit for partition and possession
Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad: Vibha Kankanwadi, J., while addressing a matter revolving around the property, observed that, Article 254 of
Sikkim High Court: If a father keeps his self-acquired property for the purpose of mortgage, can his sons interfere in the same?
Bombay High Court: Noting the misery of parents aged 90 years, G.S. Kulkarni, J., observed that, “Daughters are daughters forever and sons
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Ujjal Bhuyan and Madhav J. Jamdar, JJ., while explaining the provisions under Maintenance and Welfare
Madras High Court: G. Jaya Chandran, J., expressed that the individual property can blend with the ancestral property or with the joint
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of A.S. Chandurkar and N.B. Suryawanshi, JJ., reiterated that father-in-law has a moral responsibility to maintain
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Jyotsna Rewal Dua J., disposed off the petition without any interference with impugned orders. The facts of the
by Devika Sharma†
Rajasthan High Court: Sabina, J., dismissed the petition moved for dismissing the suit for partition qua the petitioner since no ground for
Madhya Pradesh High Court: This petition was filed before the Bench of Vivek Rusia, J. Facts of the case were such that
Bombay High Court: Sandeep K. Shinde, J., upheld the order of the first Appellate Court whereby it reversed the trial court’s decision and