Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.78 seconds)
Documents citing Raghunath Sahu And Anr. vs Bhimsen Naik And Anr. on 24 July, 1964

Lachhia Sahuain vs Ram Shankar Sah on 22 September, 1965

In support of his contention that the instant case comes within the purview of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied on the following cases, namely, Raghunath Sabu v. Bhimsen Naik, AIR 1965 Orissa 59; Rangaswami Naicker v. Cninnammal, AIR 1964 Mad 387; Sasadhar Chandra v. Sm. Tara Sundari Dasi, AIR 1962 Cal 438 and Smt. Sharbali Devi v. Pt. Hiralal, AIR 1964 Punj 114.
Patna High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Sumeshwar Mishra And Ors. vs Swami Nath Tiwari And Ors. on 5 September, 1969

9. The cases of partition are on a distinct and clear footing. They are Raghunath Sahu v. Bhimsen Naik, AIR 1965 Orissa 59, Sasadhar Chandra Day v. Sm. Tara Sundari Dasi, AIR 1962 Cal 438, V. Sampathkumari v. M. Lakshmi Ammal, AIR 1963 Mad 50 and Lachhia Sahuain v. Ram Shankar Sah, 1966 BLJR 82 = (AIR 1966 Pat 191). In all these cases the widow had a right to get property on partition in accordance with the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 or otherwise and when she got such an estate on partition before coming into force of the Act, it was held in all those cases that her limited estate became the absolute estate on and from the 17th June, 1956. The case of acquisition of property by gift or will will be on a different footing. If a female Hindu acquires such a property without a restrictive clause she would still be held under certain circumstances to be a limited owner under the personal Hindu Law but in such a case she will be the full owner of the property on coming into force of the Act. But if the acquisition was with a restrictive clause in express terms Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act will prevent her from becoming the full owner of the property and will subject her to the restrictive clause. The two types of eases are on the two extremes and there does not seem to be much dispute or debate in that regard. The question of a female Hindu getting the property in lieu of her maintenance creates some difficulty in the matter. She gets the property not because she had some title to the property but she gets it because she had a right to get maintenance out of the usufruct of the property. Yet she does not get it, as I have said above, gratis or by way of charity. She gets it in lieu of her right to get maintenance.
Patna High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 10 - N L Untwalia - Full Document

Ude Chand And Ors. vs Mst. Rajo on 29 November, 1965

9. As regards 40 bighas of land, which was in possession of Smt. Rajo at the time of the enforcement of the Act. the case was not covered by Sub-section (2) of Section 14, but by Section 14(1) of the Act. She had not acquired title to this land on the basis of the compromise-deed. She was the widow of Des Raj, after whose death she acquired the widow's estate in this land along with his other properly, but this estate was converted into full ownership by the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act. There is ample authority for the proposition that the word " acquired " in Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act has to be given a restricted meaning and would cover those cases only where the Hindu female had no interest previously in the property and it was for the first time by virtue of the gift, will or the other modes mentioned in this sub section that the property was acquired by her (see inter alia Raghunath Sahu v Bhimsen Naik. AIR 1965 Orissa 59.)
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Bapusaheb Bhausaheb Patil And Anr. vs Gangabai And Ors. on 14 October, 1970

12. It, therefore, follows that in cases arising out of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, which on the death of a coparcener gave a Hindu widow a share in the coparcenary property, the Hindu woman's limited estate would be enlarged into full ownership in spite of any subsequent instrument, award or decree declaring or redefining her rights as a limited estate. (See Raghunath Sahu v. Bhimsen Naik, ; Sasadhar Chandra v. Tara Sundar, ; Sampathkumari v. Lakshmi Ammal, and Lachhia v. Ram Shankar, ).
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Chellammal vs Nallammal on 3 March, 1971

27. I may next refer to the Bench decision of the Orissa High Court in Reghunath Sahu v. Bhimsen Naick A.I.R. 1965 Orissa 59, which followed and applied the principle of the Bench decision of this Court referred above. In that case a suit was filed by the widow of a predeceased coparcener of a joint family to enforce her rights under the Act of 1937 and there was a compromise under which the widow, amongst other things, was allotted some lands to be enjoyed by her during her lifetime. The compromise contained the stipulation that she shall not transfer her interest in the lands in respect of which she was given a life interest. After the Act of 1956 came into force, disputes arose between the parties on the question whether the widow became an absolute owner in respect of the properties allotted to her for her lifetime. On the first point, the Bench held that the property was not acquired within the meaning of Section 14(2) because, even before the compromise, the widow had acquired, title from inheritance from her husband and that the compromise merely declared and dealt with her pre-existing rights. That is one ground on which Section 14(2) was held inapplicable. The Bench also held that Section 14(2) would not apply to properties given to the Hindu female either in partition or in lieu of maintenance. It was observed at pages 60 and 61 as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Smt. Suhag Wanti And Anr. vs Smt. Sodhan (Died) And Ors. on 20 February, 1967

The same rule of law was iterated in Hira Lal v. Smt. Sharbati Devi, (1966) 68 Pun LR 51; Gadam Reddayya v. Varapula Venkataraju AIR 1965 Andh Pra 66; P.K. Saraswathi Ammal v. Krishan Iyer, AIR 1965 Ker 226; Raghunath Sahu v. Bhimsen Naik, AIR 1965 Orissa 59, Smt Janak Dulari v. District Judge, Kanpur, AIR 1961 All 294 and Susadhar Chandra Dey v. Smt. Tara Sundari Dasi, AIR 1962 Cal 438.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1