All rights reserved by @

Lorenzo Von Matterhorn

1. Priya Ranjan Rawat vs Saroj Rawat (2016 JHAR) – Difference between JP and

JFP.

2. Gur Tahal Das Vs Gur Charan Das (SC 1952) - Illegitimate child is part of fathers

JF.

3. Dipo Vs Wassan Singh- Sister inherited the property from dead brother. Nature of

property changes according to person.

4. Gulkandi Vs dhikkal (P&H 2016) – Origin of property is immaterial for

determining its character subsequently.

5. Mohd Hussian Khan Vs Balu Kishva Nanda Sahi ( PC 1937)- Property Inherited

from maternal grandfather is separate property.

6. CA Arunachalam Vs CN Murugantha (SC 1953)- Will of the testator to be looked

upon while deciding the nature of property as to what were his intentions.

7. Prem Bhatnagar Vs Ravi Mohan Bhatnagar (DEL 2013) - No concept of

ancestral property in the 1956 act and person can write a valid will for properties

inherited from his father.

8. Vedram Hukum Singh Vs Tikaram (CHG 2013) – The nature of property inherited

from father after 1956 act is that of a separate property.

9. Maharu Vs Hemraj (BOM 2014) – Conditions to prove blending of SP into

common stock.

10. Ramnath Narayan Pai Vs Eknath Naryan Pai (BOM 2016) – Property bought

from JFF is JFP, it is irrelevant on whose name it is bought (Property in Goa case).

11. Swaran Lata VS Kulbhushan Lata (DEL 2014) – The property Karta bought from

compensation money for the family if JFP and not SP.

12. K Govindrajan Vs K Subramaniyam (MAD 2013) – Properties bought from salary

or remuneration are separate properties and not JFP. (Brother claiming that since
All rights reserved by @
Lorenzo Von Matterhorn

education was funded by JFF so property bought from salary becomes JFP, Denied

because of Hindu means of learning act).

13. Ramanada Sahoo Vs Prafulla Kumar Sahoo (ORI 2017) – Brother was only

generous, father was alive so elder brother cannot be Karta.

14. Chandradip Prasad Vs Jagunnath Agarwalla (CAL 1995) – Unless it is proved

otherwise the elder brother is presumed to be the Karta in absence of the father.

15. Nopany Investment Ltd Vs Santook Singh (SC 2008) – Conditions where younger

brother can act as Karta.

16. Shreya Vidyarthi Vs Ashok Vidhyarti (SC 2016) – A insurance nominee is only a

manager and not the Karta. The property belongs to all of the heirs. A non coparcener

cannot become a Karta but only a manager on behalf of a minor Karta.

17. Sujata Sharama Vs Manu Gupta (DEL 2016)– If the daughter is eldest in house

than she becomes the Karta regardless of her marital status.

18. Ashok Kumar Vs CIT (J&K 2001) – A Karta is empowered to draw a Salary for his

services pursuant to an agreement between the family members and no third party has

the right to interfere.

19. M Harish Vs Sindhu (SC 2012)– Maternal grandfather filed an appeal on behalf of

minor to restrain father from selling JFP to repay loan. Court held that repayment of

debt is a necessity and Karta need not take permission of coparceners.

20. Ananda Krishna Tate Vs Draupadibai Tate (BOM 2010) – The court held that

only coparceners have the right to challenge alienation by Karta. Since mother and

wife are not coparceners they do not have locus.

21. Dev Kishan Vs Ram Kishan (RAJ 2002) – Karta cannot sell a property in dirt cheap

prices citing legal necessity; the property must be sold at a reasonable and realistic

price.
All rights reserved by @
Lorenzo Von Matterhorn

22. Balmukund Vs Kamlavati (SC 1964) – If Karta alienates the JFP by citing benefit

of estate than we have to look where the money from the sale of JFP is invested. Mere

higher price and monetary benefit cannot justify the alienation by Karta.

23. Sundar Yadav Vs Asha Kumari (PAT 2009)– Karta can execute a sale deed in

favour of her daughter if she has taken care of her in his old age and the son has no

right to challenge because he broke his pious obligation by not taking care of his

father.

24. A Raghavamma Vs A Chenchamma (SC 1964) – Conditions for an effective

partition. A Mitakshara coparcener cannot write a will without having partitioned (Pre

1956).

25. Kakamanu Peda Subhayya Vs Kakamanu Akkamma (SC 1958) – The severance

of status of a minor coparcener takes place on the day the suit for partition is filed in

the court.\

26. Putt Rangamma Vs MS Rangamma (SC 1968)– Severance of status takes place as

soon as communication has been made to Karta and if the member dies afterwards it

would be his separate property since the partition is complete.

27. Prema Vs Nanje Gowda (SC 2011) – Interim decree can be changed after passing of

2005 amendments to give share to daughter in final decree.

28. Prakash vs Phulwati (SC 2016) – Conditions for application of 2005 amendments.

Remember dates. \

29. Ganduri Koteshwaramma Vs Chakiri Yanadi (SC 2012) – A suit for partition was

filed in 2003 and shares of parties were fixed although not specified in a preliminary

decree, father was alive. After 2005 daughter clamed right and SC held that they are

right since final decree is not passed and father was alive.
All rights reserved by @
Lorenzo Von Matterhorn

30. Danamma Suman Surpur Vs Amar (SC 2018) - Conditions for Application of 2005

amendment.

31. Daka Audemma Vs Inaganti Venkateshwara Reddy – If a provision is

retrospective it has to be mentioned expressly which is not there is sec 6 of 2005

amendment.

32. Lokamani Vs Mahadevamma (2016 Kar) – court held that 2015 amending acts

incorporates the 2005 act into 1956 act and its affects won’t be changed.

33. Sweety Vs General Public (2016 HP) – Customs will apply to transgender

community.

34. Mohan Singh VS Rajni Kant – Live in relation conditions and children.

35. Vidyadevi Vs Shri Prakash – The child widow was made to sign a settlement deed

in 1954which said that she can only sell the property to family members of deceased.

She claimed that after 1956 act she has absolute ownership. The court held that it will

interpret in widest possible sense and he contentions were upheld.

36. Gaddam Ramkrishna Reddy Vs Gaddam Ravi Reddy – A life estate created in

favour of mother to be latter transferred to son cannot become mother’s absolute

property as it was never meant for her benefit.

37. Om Praskash Vs Radhacharan (2009 SC) – Widows property earned over lifetime

was given to husbands relatives because she died without a will.

38. Gurupad Vs Herabai – Death of father before 2005 and after 1956 means notional

partition and the daughter cannot reopen such partition.