CASE COMMENTARY ON URMILA DIXIT VS. SUNIL SHARAN DIXIT AND ORS. 2025 INSC 20
Fuente:
Zenodo
Salvato in:
| Autore principale: | |
|---|---|
| Natura: | Recurso digital |
| Pubblicazione: |
Zenodo
2025
|
| Accesso online: | |
| Tags: |
Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!
|
| _version_ | 1866901218636333056 |
|---|---|
| author | Ashish Kansal |
| author_facet | Ashish Kansal |
| contents | This paper discusses the landmark judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. This case revolves around Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter 'Äòthe Act'), which deals with 'ÄúTransfer of property to be void in certain circumstances'Äù. Basically, the Apex Court held that senior citizens have the right to take back their transferred property if they are not maintained, for their term of life, by the transferee. Therefore, in the present case, the appellant is the mother of the respondent who had been restored with the property which was primarily transferred to the respondent by the appellant. |
| format | Recurso digital |
| id | zenodo_https___doi_org_10_5281_zenodo_19694374 |
| institution | Zenodo |
| language | |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| publisher | Zenodo |
| record_format | zenodo |
| spellingShingle | CASE COMMENTARY ON URMILA DIXIT VS. SUNIL SHARAN DIXIT AND ORS. 2025 INSC 20 Ashish Kansal This paper discusses the landmark judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. This case revolves around Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter 'Äòthe Act'), which deals with 'ÄúTransfer of property to be void in certain circumstances'Äù. Basically, the Apex Court held that senior citizens have the right to take back their transferred property if they are not maintained, for their term of life, by the transferee. Therefore, in the present case, the appellant is the mother of the respondent who had been restored with the property which was primarily transferred to the respondent by the appellant. |
| title | CASE COMMENTARY ON URMILA DIXIT VS. SUNIL SHARAN DIXIT AND ORS. 2025 INSC 20 |
| url | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19694374 |