Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.38 seconds)The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Section 8 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988
Section 4 in The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Yudhishter vs Ashok Kumar on 11 December, 1986
If that be the position then the property which
developed upon the father of the respondent in the instant case on
the demise of his grandfather could not be said to be HUF property.
If that is so, then the appellate authority was right in holding that
the respondent was a licensee of his father in respect of the
ancestral house." (emphasis is mine)
7(i). As per the ratio of the Supreme Court in the case of
Yudhishter (supra) after passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the
position which traditionally existed with respect to an automatic right of a
person in properties inherited by his paternal predecessors-in-interest from
the latter‟s paternal ancestors upto three degrees above, has come to an
end. Under the traditional Hindu Law whenever a male ancestor inherited
any property from any of his paternal ancestors upto three degrees above
him, then his male legal heirs upto three degrees below him had a right in
that property equal to that of the person who inherited the same. Putting it
in other words when a person „A‟ inherited property from his father or
grandfather or great grandfather then the property in his hand was not to
be treated as a self-acquired property but was to be treated as an HUF
CS(OS) No.1862/2010 Page 7 of 16
property in which his son, grandson and great grandson had a right equal
to „A‟. After passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, this position has
undergone a change and if a person after 1956 inherits a property from his
paternal ancestors, the said property is not an HUF property in his hands
and the property is to be taken as a self-acquired property of the person
who inherits the same. There are two exceptions to a property inherited by
such a person being and remaining self-acquired in his hands, and which
will be either an HUF and its properties was existing even prior to the
passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and which Hindu Undivided
Family continued even after passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956,
and in which case since HUF existed and continued before and after 1956,
the property inherited by a member of an HUF even after 1956 would be
HUF property in his hands to which his paternal successors-in-interest
upto the three degrees would have a right. The second exception to the
property in the hands of a person being not self-acquired property but an
HUF property is if after 1956 a person who owns a self-acquired property
throws the self-acquired property into a common hotchpotch whereby such
property or properties thrown into a common hotchpotch become Joint
Hindu Family properties/HUF properties. In order to claim the properties
in this second exception position as being HUF/Joint Hindu Family
properties/properties, a plaintiff has to establish to the satisfaction of the
court that when (i.e date and year) was a particular property or properties
thrown in common hotchpotch and hence HUF/Joint Hindu Family
created.
Sunny (Minor) & Anr. vs Sh. Raj Singh & Ors. on 17 November, 2015
Also, at this stage, it is
relevant to refer to the observations made in the judgment in the case of Surender
CS(OS) No.1862/2010 Page 12 of 16
Kumar (supra) wherein reference is made to passing of the Benami Transactions
(Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as „the Benami Act‟) and observed
that once a property is found to be in the ownership of a particular person by title
deeds (and that particular person being the defendant no.1 in the present case as
regards the Rajinder Nagar property and the Faridabad property), it is hence the
defendant no.1 who would be the owner of such properties and a suit for claiming
rights in such properties would be barred by Section 4(1) of the Benami Act.
Exceptions to Section 4(1) of the Benami Act are stated under Section 4(3) of the
Benami Act and which are firstly of existence of an HUF or secondly of the
property being purchased as a trustee/in fiduciary relationship. Since the
provision of Section 4(3) of the Benami Act is in the nature of exception to the
provision of Section 4(1), this aspect read with Order VI Rule 4 CPC which
requires all necessary particulars to be mentioned in the plaint, plaintiff had to set
up a clear cut case by pleading in the plaint as to how HUF and its properties have
come into existence and as to how the suit properties are HUF properties once the
title deeds of the properties are admittedly in the name of the defendant no.1.
Commissioner Of Wealth Tax. Kanpur Etc. ... vs Chander Sen Etc on 16 July, 1986
10. In view of the above, it is clear that the suit as per the pleadings,
documents and the undisputed/admitted position does not show existence of a
cause of action with respect to HUF and its properties. At the cost of repetition,
and also so stated in para 12 in the judgment in the case of Surender Kumar
(supra), it is to be noted that courts are flooded with litigations which are
CS(OS) No.1862/2010 Page 14 of 16
frivolous in nature, simply by making vague and illusionary allegations of facts as
to the traditional concept of HUF and which no longer exists after 1956 as per the
ratios of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Yudhishter (supra)
and Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Others (supra). Obviously, such
litigations are in the nature of speculations only and are against the spirit of the
Benami Act which intends to give finality to the ownership of the properties in the
name of a particular person by means of title deeds in the name of a particular
person. As per the pleadings and admitted documents in the present case, there is
no legal cause of action with the necessary ingredients existing/averred with
respect to existence of HUF and its properties, and it may be again noted at the
cost of repetition that there are only general and vague averments in paras 2 and 3
of the plaint, of the defendant no.1 inheriting ancestral properties in Pakistan
without giving details as to what those imaginary properties were. The suit on the
basis of such imaginary cause of action cannot be allowed to continue and cause
harassment to the defendants.