Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 380 (0.97 seconds)
Documents citing Prakash vs Phulavati . on 16 October, 2015

Sri H P Chikkarama Reddy vs Smt Kanthamma on 14 September, 2020

"106. In the instant case, the question is different. What has been recognized as partition by the legislation under section 6, accordingly, rights are to be worked out. This Court consistently held in various decisions mentioned above that when the rights are subsequently conferred, the preliminary decree can be amended, and the benefit of law has to be conferred. Hence, we have no hesitation to reject the effect of statutory fiction of proviso to section 6 as discussed in Prakash v. Phulavati (supra) and Danamma (supra). If a daughter is alive on the date of enforcement of the Amendment Act, she becomes a coparcener with effect from the date 16 of the Amendment Act, irrespective of the date of birth earlier in point of time.
Karnataka High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Lata W/O Shahu Ghorpade vs Malubai W/O Ramchndra Dange on 20 June, 2017

Despite the amendment made to Section 6 of the Act, having regard to the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash vs. Phulavati supra, as the father of the plaintiff died long ago i.e., sometime in the year 1975, the amended Section 6 of the Act would not apply. In the circumstances, on application of the principles of notional partition, plaintiff would be entitled to one-fourth share in the said items. Hence, substantial question of law is accordingly answered by holding that the plaintiff is entitled to one-fourth share in the said properties and that her marriage would not, in any way, deprive her of the said properties as was the 27 case under Section 6A of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Karnataka Amendment). In view of the Parliament subsequently amending Section 6 of the Act with effect from 09.09.2005, the Parliamentary amendment would prevail over the said amendment. This is on the basis of Article 254 of the Constitution. Hence, the award of one- fourth share to the plaintiff by the first appellate court in respect of item Nos.3 and 4 is just and proper and the substantial question of law is accordingly answered.
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - B V Nagarathna - Full Document

Pawan Johar vs . Rajinder Khanna & Others on 31 August, 2021

How are the Amendments to be interpreted was explained by Apex Court in Prakash vs. Phulavati (2016) 2 SCC 36 wherein it was held that the amendment was prospective but the right under the substituted Section 6 accrues to living daughters of living coparceners as on 09.09.2005 irrespective of when such daughters were born. It was thus held that coparceners from whom daughter is inheriting the right must be alive on the date of amendment i.e. 09.09.2005.
Delhi District Court Cites 57 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Balasaheb Irappa Chavan @ Balasaheb ... vs Sarubai Gangadhar Dhumal And Ors on 25 September, 2025

The 7/8 SA 121 25 Or.odt decisions in Prakash v. Phulavati and Danamma were referred, and it was opined that Prakash v. Phulavati would still hold the value of precedent for right of a daughter in ancestral property and only "living daughters of living coparceners" as on 9-9-2005 would be entitled to claim a share in the coparcenary property."
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Maruti Janu Mhskar(D/H) And Anothr vs Muktabai Suryakant Bhoir And Others on 13 March, 2024

Supreme Court clarified this portion in Vineeta Sharma (Supra) where it overruled Prakash v. Phulavati (Supra) and reiterated that the coparcenary rights is an 'unobstructed heritage' which cannot be 24 Amol D. Nawale ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2024 10:13:19 ::: SA.699.2012.doc restricted by any conditions, and it applies uniformly to sons and daughters.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Maruti Janu Mhskar vs Muktabai Suryakant Bhoir on 13 March, 2024

Supreme Court clarified this portion in Vineeta Sharma (Supra) where it overruled Prakash v. Phulavati (Supra) and reiterated that the coparcenary rights is an 'unobstructed heritage' which cannot be 24 Amol D. Nawale ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2024 10:13:05 ::: SA.699.2012.doc restricted by any conditions, and it applies uniformly to sons and daughters.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next