https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311277 Both appeals were dismissed by the HC, affirming the property as joint family property. The court rejected the second defendant's claim that the property was his self-acquired asset and denied his request for an injunction against the plaintiffs. It was determined that the property was acquired with contributions from all family members and was treated as joint family property. The plaintiffs were entitled to partition their 2/5th share, and the second defendant's prior decree was deemed a nullity due to fraud. en-us Tue, 10 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Dec 2023 12:14:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311277 Both appeals were dismissed by the HC, affirming the property as joint family property. The court rejected the second defendant's claim that the property was his self-acquired asset and denied his request for an injunction against the plaintiffs. It was determined that the property was acquired with contributions from all family members and was treated as joint family property. The plaintiffs were entitled to partition their 2/5th share, and the second defendant's prior decree was deemed a nullity due to fraud. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 10 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311277