Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.63 seconds)Section 6 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Mrs. Mallika And Ors. vs Mr. Chandrappa And Ors. on 10 January, 2007
CHANDER SEN AND OTHERS reported in (AIR 1986 SC
14
1753) and a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court
in the case of MALLIKA VS. CHANDRAPPA reported in ILR
2007 KAR 3216 and two other judgments.
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Section 4 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Shyam Narayan Prasad vs Krishna Prasad on 2 July, 2018
On the other hand, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in a latest decision, in the case of
SHYAM NARAYAN PRASAD Vs KRISHNA PRASAD reported
in 2018 (7) SCC 646, has reiterated that property inherited
by a male Hindu from his father, father's father or father's
father's father, is an ancestral property. It was held that
according to Mitakshara law, the sons, grandsons and great
grandsons of the person who inherits it, acquire interest and
rights attached to such property at the moment of their birth.
After partition, property in the hands of a son continues to be
ancestral property and son of that son takes interest in it and
is entitled to it by survivorship. Therefore, it is obvious that
the submission of the learned counsel for respondent
No.1/plaintiff that the provisions of Section 8 is applicable in
this case and not Section 6, is to overcome the proviso under
Section 6 (1) of the Act, which saves all alienations made prior
to 20.12.2004. However, this argument will not apply to the
facts of the present case since admittedly, after the death of
Ningappa, there has been no partition of the property
16
belonging to Ningappa and therefore, neither the plaintiff nor
defendant No.1 can claim to have taken the property as his or
her separate property.
1