Daughter’s Right in Coparcenary Property:  Bombay High Court Affirms.

Case Title – Kamalakar Purushotam Inamdar & Ors. vs. Smt. Rajani Shriram Madiwale & Ors.

Case No. – Second Appeal No. 335, 336 of 2015

Dated on – 14th June, 2024

Quorum – Hon’ble Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh

Facts of the Case –

Purushotam, upon his death, left behind two properties: Kashidwadi (self-acquired) and Padali (ancestral). Dispute arose over the inheritance of these properties, particularly concerning the applicability of the 2005 Amendment Act to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which granted daughters equal coparcenary rights in ancestral properties. The main issue was whether Purushotam’s daughters, Defendant Nos. 7 and 8, could claim coparcenary rights in Padali despite their mother’s death before the enactment of the amendment. The case revolved around interpreting the retroactive application of the amended law to determine the inheritance rights of the parties involved.

Issues –

  • Whether the finding of the 1st Appellate Court that the suit property was the self-acquired property is based on misreading of the evidence on record and the evidence which has come on record?
  • Whether on proper appreciation of the evidence the Plaintiff can be stated to have discharged the burden of proving that the suit properties are the self-acquired properties?
  • Whether the Courts have properly interpreted amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005, while granting equal share to the Plaintiffs?

Legal Provisions –

  • Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956


Contentions of the Appellant –

The appellant in this case primarily contends that the lower court erred in its classification of the properties in question, specifically Kashidwadi and Padali, as self-acquired and ancestral, respectively. It is argued that the evidence presented clearly establishes Kashidwadi property as ancestral, contrary to the lower court’s finding of it being self-acquired. This classification discrepancy is crucial because it impacts the appellant’s entitlement to a share in the ancestral property under Hindu Succession laws. Additionally, the appellant disputes the lower court’s calculation of shares in both properties, asserting that their entitlement has been incorrectly determined. The appeal further challenges the application of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, concerning the appellant’s deceased ancestor, Indira, and the effect on her inheritance rights vis-à-vis the ancestral Padali property. Therefore, the appellant seeks a reversal of the lower court’s decisions regarding property classification and shares, based on a correct interpretation of the law and evidence presented.


Contentions of the Respondent –

The respondent in this case maintains that the lower court’s classification of the properties, Kashidwadi and Padali, as self-acquired and ancestral respectively, was correct based on the evidence presented during trial. They argue that the lower court properly applied the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in determining the nature of these properties and the entitlements of the parties involved. The respondent contends that the appellant’s challenge to this classification lacks merit and is based on a misinterpretation of the evidence and legal principles. Furthermore, they assert that the calculation of shares by the lower court was accurate and in accordance with the applicable laws, particularly with regard to the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The respondent emphasizes that the rights of the parties, including those of the deceased ancestor Indira, were correctly adjudicated by the lower court, ensuring equitable distribution as per the legal framework governing succession. Therefore, the respondent opposes the appeal and seeks to uphold the lower court’s decisions regarding property classification, shares, and the application of relevant laws.


Court Analysis and Judgement –

The court analyzed the appeal in light of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, particularly focusing on the amendments introduced in 2005. It deliberated on the nature of the properties in question—Kashidwadi and Padali—deciding Kashidwadi was self-acquired by Purushotam and Padali was ancestral. The court scrutinized the evidence to ascertain whether the properties were correctly classified. It upheld the lower court’s determination that Kashidwadi was self-acquired and Padali was ancestral, dismissing the appellant’s challenge.

Regarding shares, the court affirmed the lower court’s distribution under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It concluded that Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 each were entitled to 7/36th share in Padali, with Defendant Nos.4 to 6 collectively entitled to 7/36th share, and Defendant Nos.7 and 8 collectively to 1/36th share. The court maintained the calculation and distribution of shares were legally sound.


“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed By- Anurag Das

Click here to read the Judgement.


Madhya Pradesh High Court stressed on establishing substantial question of law for admitting a second appeal

CASE TITLE- Vishnu Singh S/O Jagdish Singh Vs Kamal Singh and Ors.

CASE NUMBER- Second Appeal No. 76 of 2021

DATED ON- 18.06.2024

QUORUM- Honourable Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh


The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for declaration of title regarding the suit property situated in village Sukakhedi, total land measuring 9.962 hectares in full part and on 6.985 hectares for declaring the title on 1/2 part along with declaring that sale-deed as null and void and injucting plaintiffs by permanent injuction to interfere in the possession and use of suit land by plaintiff. On an appeal by the plaintiff, learned Second Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal.


Section 63 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908


The appellant contented that, there was a Will dated in favour of the plaintiff. Santribai, wife of late Nepal Singh had willed the suit property to him as she was issueless but defendants partitioned the suitland on false ground and obtained a revenue order in favour of Indira Bai.


The defendant contented that late Nepal Singh, husband of Santribai had purchased the suit land from joint family income in his name, therefore, Santribai and Indirabai, both were entitled.


The court analyzed that, plaintiff witness No.2 Gulzar Singh as per Section 63 of Hindu Succession Act has not stated that Santribai had signed the Will before him therefore, the execution of the Will was proved is incorrect.  Even otherwise, plaintiff Vishnu Singh admitted that Nepal Singh did not have any other extra income besides agricultural income and regarding the statement that land was purchased from the gold and jewellery received from father and mother of Santribai, there were no pleadings of the plaintiff in the suit, therefore, evidence without pleading cannot be accepted. Moreover, the suit should have been filed within three years but the suit was filed after the limitation time bar. The court held that no substantial question of law arises on which this second appeal can be admitted and the appeal got dismissed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed By- Shreyasi Ghatak


Supreme Court Verdict Emphasizes Proximate Cause in Abetment Cases.

Date: December 1, 2023.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Nature: Criminal Appeal.

Quorum: Hon’ble J. Abhay S. Oka, J. Pankaj Mithal.


Facts of the case

The appellant in this case is accused of abetting suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent, a widow, had borrowed Rs. 40,000 from the appellant. She later borrowed an additional Rs. 60,000, from which the appellant deducted Rs. 15,000 as interest. In 2017, the appellant verbally abused the respondent over the phone for failing to repay the loan. On one occasion, the appellant visited the shop of the respondent’s husband. Despite the husband’s request for more time to arrange the money, the appellant abused him and threatened to abduct the respondent’s daughter. The appellant had also obtained cheques from the respondent and issued a legal notice when one was dishonoured. The respondent alleges that her husband took his own life due to the threats and tension caused by the appellant’s actions.

Legal issues

Whether the appellant instigated the deceased to commit suicide?

Legal provisions

  1. Section 306 of Indian Penal Code.
  2. Section 107 of Indian Penal Code.
  3. Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Contentions by the Appellant:

The learned counsel for appellant submitted that the deceased was under tension due to his inability to repay the loan borrowed by his wife. The allegations in the complaint and suicide note do not constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC.


Contentions by the Respondent:

The learned counsel for respondent submitted that the allegations in the suicide note are sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the appellants. The question of whether an offence under Section 306 is made out should be decided only after evidence is adduced.

Judgment and Analysis:

The Supreme Court, in its wisdom, sided with the appellants and quashed the proceedings. The Court emphasized that for abetment of suicide, there must be instigation that is intended to push the deceased to a position where they have no choice but to commit suicide. Importantly, such instigation must be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide. The Court noted that the alleged incident of threats and assault occurred more than two weeks before the suicide. There were no allegations of any actions by the appellants close to the date of the suicide. The Court found no evidence of the necessary mental element (mens rea) to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The Court observed that there were no allegations of the appellants meeting or speaking to the deceased or his wife after the initial incident on June 15, 2017. Interestingly, the Court noted that in his suicide note, the deceased had blamed his wife for their troubles due to her “bad habits.”

This judgment provides clarification on what constitutes abetment of suicide under Indian law. It notes that mere demands for repayment of a loan, even if accompanied by abusive language or assault, do not automatically amount to abetment of suicide. There must be a clear and proximate link between the alleged instigation and the act of suicide. Courts should be cautious in proceeding with abetment of suicide charges where the alleged acts are not closely connected in time to the suicide.


The Supreme Court’s decision in Mohit Singhal v. State of Uttarakhand serves as a reminder of the high bar for proving abetment of suicide. While the law must protect vulnerable individuals, it must also safeguard against misuse. This judgment strikes a balance by emphasizing the need for clear evidence of instigation closely linked to the act of suicide.

Reviewed by Maria Therese Syriac.

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.


Gujarat HC Judge to watch movie ‘Maharaj’ to see if it hurt Religious Sentiments

The Gujarat High Court ordered on Wednesday to see the film ‘Maharaj’ to assess if it offends the religious emotions of the Pustimargi sect. It is set to be released on Netflix. Justice Sangeeta Vishen stated that if the court determines that there was nothing in the video that damaged religious emotions, the matter will be closed. “You are only concerned if the movie is hurting the religious feelings of a particular sect or not,” the court said senior lawyer Mihir Joshi, who represented the petitioners.

The film, starring Aamir Khan’s son Junaid Khan and Jaideep Ahlawat, is based on a landmark libel case filed in 1862 by a prominent Vaishnavite figure, Jadunathji, against journalist and social reformer Karsandas Mulji, who had written against sexual exploitation by the all-powerful Maharaj. Mulji’s exposé of the exploitative practice in his magazine The Satyaprakash sparked a libel suit that became known as the Maharaj Libel Case. On June 13, the Supreme Court halted Netflix’s release of the film, prompting the streaming giant and producer Yash Raj Films to seek redress.

The petitioners, including the Pustimargi sect, sought orders against the film’s release on the assumption that it portrayed the Vaishnav sect in a negative light, was likely to “incite feelings of hatred and violence” against the sect, and may “hurt public sentiments at large with its reportedly controversial depiction of certain characters and practices”. The bench, which began hearing detailed arguments in the case on Tuesday, accepted the production house’s offer to play the film for the court on Wednesday and requested that the other stakeholders to achieve an agreement on this issue.

An hour later, veteran lawyer Mihir Joshi, who represented the petitioners, said he was on board. “The court may review the movie to determine if it is defamatory. We have no commercial interests against Netflix or Yash Raj Films.” Please watch it. If the film does not disparage our religion, allow it to be screened in public. Joshi stated, “We don’t want to stretch the matter at all.”
Shalin Mehta, who represented Yash Raj Films, stated that the production house intended to continue the matter on the maintainability of the petition regardless of the outcome of the screening, pointing out that his client was losing money for each day that the film was delayed in being released.

The bench, on the other hand, dismissed the argument, stating that the filmmakers received approval from the Central Board of Film Certification in May 2023. “There were no rules or laws that prevented the film from being released. But you had to wait until June 14th. So one day here or there may not have a big impact,” she explained.

Mehta attempted to reassure the petitioners that the video covered the trial rather than the judgement. In response to allegations that Supreme Court of Bombay judges made blasphemous remarks against Lord Krishna and devotional songs in 1862, the film does not read any lines from the judgement, except that the case was dismissed after 32 witnesses were examined.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By: Abhishek singh





Burning topic: SC had ordered Neet re-exam on 24th June

On June 24th, the Supreme Court of India issued a significant order mandating a re-examination of the NEET (National Eligibility cum Entrance Test), a crucial examination for admission into undergraduate and postgraduate medical and dental courses across the country. This decision came amidst mounting concerns and allegations of irregularities during the conduct of the exam, highlighting the Court’s proactive stance in upholding fairness and transparency in educational assessments.

NEET serves as a gateway for thousands of aspiring medical and dental students annually, determining their admission to prestigious institutions based on merit. The Supreme Court’s intervention underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of such high-stakes examinations, ensuring that all candidates have a level playing field.

The order for a re-examination is a response to various issues raised regarding the administration and conduct of the exam. These concerns include reports of question paper leaks, discrepancies in exam centers, and allegations of malpractice. Such incidents not only undermine the trust in the examination process but also raise doubts about the fairness with which candidates are evaluated for their academic prowess.

For the students who had already appeared for the previous NEET exam, the Court’s decision means uncertainty and additional preparation. It necessitates that these students invest more time and effort to perform well in the upcoming re-exam, thereby impacting their academic timelines and aspirations.

Moreover, the re-examination directive has broader implications for the education sector and its stakeholders. It prompts discussions among policymakers, educational institutions, and regulatory bodies about enhancing the security measures and protocols for conducting examinations of national importance. It underscores the need for stringent measures to prevent leaks, maintain the confidentiality of question papers, and ensure the smooth conduct of exams across multiple centers nationwide.

The Supreme Court’s proactive approach in ordering a re-exam reflects its commitment to upholding the principles of justice and fairness in educational assessments. By intervening in matters concerning the conduct of NEET, the Court asserts its role in safeguarding the interests of students and maintaining the credibility of the examination system.

In conclusion, while the Supreme Court’s decision to order a NEET re-exam on June 24th aims to address concerns over alleged irregularities, it also highlights the challenges and complexities involved in conducting large-scale examinations in a fair and transparent manner. It calls for collective efforts from all stakeholders to strengthen the examination process, restore trust among candidates, and ensure that meritocracy remains the guiding principle in admissions to medical and dental colleges in India.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

News Reviewed by- Shruti Gattani

1 2 3 78