Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 438 (1.07 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Wealth Tax. Kanpur Etc. ... vs Chander Sen Etc on 16 July, 1986

Kapil Kumar And Anr vs Mishro Devi And Anr on 6 September, 2025

3. It is further submitted that the Revision Petition was dismissed with liberty to the applicant /defendant no. 6 to file another application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for urging the said and any other ground which may be available and which application shall be decided by the suit court in accordance with law. The applicant/defendant no. 6 has already taken the objections qua the locus standi of the plaintiff to maintain the present suit and lack of cause of action against the applicant/defendant no. 6 in the written statement. The averments in the plaint are general and vague with respect to inheriting ancestral property (Suit property) or having any right, title qua the suit property. The plaintiffs have no right, title or interest qua the suit property in view of the Law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur & Ors Vs Chander Sen and Ors' (1986) 3 SCC 567, wherein it was categorically held that inheritance of ancestral properties after the passing of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 does not result in the property being held as HUF property and that the property inherited after 1956 is inherited as a self-acquired property.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Baljeet Singh vs Sher Singh on 25 October, 2023

12. This Court is flooded with litigations where only CS no. 58080/16 Baljeet Singh VS. M/s. Sher Singh Page no. 12 of 14 self- serving averments are made in the plaint of existence of HUF and a person being a coparcener without in any manner pleading therein the requisite legally required factual details as to how HUF came into existence. It is a sine qua non that pleadings must contain all the requisite factual ingredients of a cause of action, and once the ratios of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Chander Sen (supra) and Yudhishter (supra) come in, the pre 1956 position and the post 1956 position has to be made clear, and also as to how HUF and its properties came into existence whether before 1956 or after 1956. It is no longer enough to simply state in the plaint after passing of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, that there is a joint Hindu family or an HUF and a person is a coparcener in such an HUF/joint Hindu family for such person to claim rights in the properties as a coparcener unless the entire factual details of the cause of action of an HUF and each property as an HUF is pleaded."
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Yoginder Singh & Anr. vs Sumit Gahlot & Ors. on 28 May, 2018

6. I completely agree with the aforesaid reasoning and conclusion of the trial court because it is now settled law in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Chander Sen RFA No.456/2018 Page 7 of 12 (supra) and Yudhishter (supra) that inheritance by a person of a property from his parental ancestors before the year 1956 makes the inheritance as an HUF property and not a self-acquired property of the inheritor.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - V J Mehta - Full Document

Mrs. Mallika And Ors. vs Mr. Chandrappa And Ors. on 10 January, 2007

13. Now to consider the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Kanpur v. Chander Sen (Supra) the facts of that case will have to be taken into consideration. In that case, there was partial partition in 1961 in the family by which the business was divided between the father Rengilal and the son Chander Sen and thereafter it was carried on by a partnership consisting of the two. The firm was assessed to income tax as a registered firm and the two partners were separately assessed in respect of their shares of income. The house proeprty of the family continued to remain joint. In 1965, the father died leaving behing his son, Chander Sen and Chander Sen's sons. On the death of Rengilal, there was credit balance of Rs. 1,85,043/- in his account in the books of the firm. For the assessment year 1966-67, Chander Sen, who constituted a joint family with his own sons, filed a return of his net wealth. The return included the property of the family, which on the death of Rengilal passed on to assets of the buisness, which devolved upon Chander Sen on the death of his father. The sum of Rs. 1,85,043/- standing to the credit of Rengilal was not included in the net wealth of the family of Chander Sen on the ground that that amount devolved on Chander Sen in his individual capacity and was not the property of Chander Sen's family. The Wealth-Tax Officer did not accept that contention and held that the sum of Rs. 1,85,043/ - also belonged to Chander Sen's family. For the subsequent year 1967-68 in respect of interest occurring on the credit balance of Rengilal and Wealth Tax assessment of Rs. 1,82,742/- similar view was taken by the assessing officer. On appeal, the Appellant Assistance Commissioner of Income Tax accepted assessee's claim in full. He held that capital in the name of Rengilal devolved on Chander Sen in his individual capacity and could not be included in the wealth of Chander Sen's family. Appeals before the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal by the revenue against those orders were dismissed.
Karnataka High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 15 - A C Kabbin - Full Document

Sangeeta vs Ramphool @ Bobby on 27 October, 2016

12. This Court is flooded with litigations where only self-serving averments are made in the plaint of existence of HUF and a person being a coparcener without in any manner pleading therein the requisite legally required factual details as to how HUF came into existence. It is a sine qua non that pleadings must contain all the requisite factual ingredients of a cause of action, and once the ratios of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Chander Sen (supra) and Yudhishter (supra) come in, the pre 1956 position and the post 1956 position has to be made clear, and also as to how HUF and its properties came into existence whether before 1956 or after 1956. It is no longer enough to simply state in the plaint after passing of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, that there is a joint Hindu family or an HUF and a person is a coparcener in such an HUF/joint Hindu family for such person to claim rights in the properties as a coparcener unless the entire factual details of the cause of action of an HUF and each property as an HUF is pleaded.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - V J Mehta - Full Document

Jagdish Singhal & Anr. vs Ram Bhaj Bansal & Ors. on 25 April, 2017

This judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chander Sen (supra) was thereafter followed by the Supreme Court in the case of Yudhishter Vs. Ashok Kumar, (1987) 1 SCC 204 wherein the Supreme Court reiterated the legal position that after coming into force of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, inheritance of ancestral property after 1956 does not create an HUF property and inheritance of ancestral property after 1956 therefore does not result in creation of an HUF property.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - V J Mehta - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next