Bharat bhushan Gupta VS Pratap Narayan Verma

An appeal arises out of a suit of mandatory & prohibitory injunction and recovery of damages for use & occupation of the suit property filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the defendants /respondents.  The injunction was directing defendant 1 & 2 to remove themselves with all their stuff from one room and open space as shown in the map plan and restraining them from creating any third-party rights or raising construction thereon and seeking for a claim on payment and damages. The plaintiff had alleged that defendant 1& 2  had admitted gracious licensee at will on the area in subject. 

The application filed by the contesting defendant no 1 under Order VII of Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 during the course of the plaintiff’s evidence, for rejection of plaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial court was considered and rejected by the Trial court on 11.07.2018 due to the value in suit was more than in the rights of the Honourable Court. Various cases were considered and further the Honourable court also observed that the plaintiff had not deposited the considerable court fees which were subject to the value of the property and the same beyond the jurisdiction of the court. Further, defendant 2 also moved the application under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC, seeking orders for framing additional issues. This application was dismissed by the Honourable Trial Court by a separate order dated 31.08.2021. 

Defendant no. 2 also challenged the jurisdiction of the court considering the value of the property in the suit which was Rs. 1.8 crore. Various averments and contests were made by both the parties thereto in the suit and the Honourable High Court passed a judgement suppressing the orders of the Trail Court. The same was challenged in the H. Supreme Court (SC) vide Civil Appellate jurisdiction where the  SC has upheld the judgement of Trail court and set aside the impugned order of the High Court. (For details refer to CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4577 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9780 of 2019) 

Kamal Anand Khopkar Vs Union of IndiA

In the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged Section 15 of the Hindu succession act.The petitioner is the mother of a deceased daughter who has requested the court to strike down Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act (HSA). As per Section 15 of HSA the property of instate woman devolves around her family members as per schedule I of the HSA who are her sons, daughters and husband. The source of the property also shall be considered before distribution. Even of the instate women’s property is acquired from her mother the property can be distributed to her husband.  On contrast, if a Hindu man is dying instate the property shall be involved around his immediate heirs as per Schedule I which include his children and wife. If none are alive, then the next heirs are his parents. The source of the property is not considered in man’s inheritance of property. In case a woman dies, no share for women’s parents is left out and the property is inherited by her husband. The petitioner has challenged Section 15 of HAS which discriminates the women as per Article 14, 15, & 21 of the Constitution. The matter is subjudice
Scroll to Top