Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.30 seconds)The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Radhika vs Aghnu Ram Mahto on 7 September, 1994
In other words, as held in the Judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Radhika Vs. Aghnu Ram Mahto, (1994) 5 SCC 761 ,
"The children and the children of the predeceased son or
daughter of the 'female Hindu' alone are entitled to get such
property. Thus, husband stands excluded from the
succession to the property inherited by 'female Hindu' from
her father's side."
Section 283 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 16 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Durga Prasad vs Narayan Ram Chandaani (D) Thr. Lr on 7 February, 2017
21. This legal position is further re-affirmed by the Apex Court in the
latest decision of Durga Prasad Vs. Narayan Ramchandaani (D), thr.
13/22
WP-13710-17-296-18.doc
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2018 02:23:24 :::
LRs., 2017 (5) ALL MR 468 (S.C.), in paragraph No.11, as follows :-
Thrity Sam Shroff vs Shiraz Byramji Anklesaria And Aspi ... on 7 March, 2007
In view of the provisions of Section
213 read with Section 283 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, the presence
of such legatee may not be necessary in the proceedings for probate, but
here, the things may be looked at from a different perspective, in view of
the fact that, earlier, the Division Bench of this Court in the proceedings
between the same parties in Appeal No.1 of 2015 in Chamber Summons
No.46 of 2013 in Testamentary Suit No.94 of 2000 and in Testamentary
Petition No.1233 of 1999 dated 27 th January 2015, after considering the
18/22
WP-13710-17-296-18.doc
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2018 02:23:24 :::
decision of this Court in the case of Thirty Sam Shroff Vs. Shiraz
Byramji Anklesaria & Anr., 2007 (2) Bom.
V. Dandapani Chettiar vs Balasubramanian Chettiar (Dead) By Lrs ... on 8 August, 2003
In this respect, this Court can usefully refer to the earlier decision
of the Apex Court in the case of Dandapani Chettiar Vs.
Balasubramanian Chettiar (Dead) by LRs. and Others, (2003) 6 SCC
633, wherein, in paragraph No.10, it was held as follows :-
Babasaheb Yeshwant Anandrao Patil vs Smt. Manjulabai Balwant Gaikwad on 8 February, 2001
30. To substantiate this submission, learned counsel for the
Petitioners has relied upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of
Babasaheb Yeshwant Anandrao Patil Vs. Smt. Manjulabai Balwant
Gaikwad, 2001 (2) ALL MR 574, wherein, the provisions of Section 213,
read with Section 283, of Indian Succession Act, 1925, were considered
and it was held that,
"In an application for probate filed by daughter of the
deceased contestant, to add her as party in place of
deceased on the basis of the 'Will', cannot be maintainable,
as no 'Letters of Administration' are yet obtained by the
daughter for the property of the deceased."
1