Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.34 seconds)Section 8 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Shyam Narayan Prasad vs Krishna Prasad on 2 July, 2018
In Shyam Narayan Prasad v. Krisha Prasad & Ors. (2018) 7 SCC 646, this Court
has recently held that :
Yudhishter vs Ashok Kumar on 11 December, 1986
In Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar, this Court held that :
Mohinder Kaur vs Pargat Singh & Ors on 4 March, 2010
In view of the legal position as explained by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Arshnoor Singh (Supra), the contrary view taken by
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mohinder Kaur Vs. Pargat Singh and
others, 2010(2) PLR 742, relied by counsel for the appellant cannot of any
help to advance his case.
Mt. Muneswari And Ors. vs Sm. Jugal Mohini Dasi on 2 September, 1948
14. It is, thus, clear from the legal position explained by this Court
by making reference to Division Bench judgment of Calcutta High Court in Mt.
Muneswari & others Vs. Smt. Jugal Mohini Dasi, AIR 1952 Calcutta 368
that undivided share of a coparcener can be attached and sold in execution of
the decree and that after sale, it would operate as division of interest and
causes a severance of interest. It is further clear that the interest, which
passes to the purchaser, would neither diminish by an increase nor increase
by diminution in the number of co-shares during life time of the JD.
Section 6 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Chinnu Pillai vs Kalimuthu Chetti on 27 January, 1911
If the interest which passes to the
purchaser is the share which the judgment-debtor would get if a partition
was made at the time of the sale, it follows that the interest would neither
be diminished by an increase, nor increased by a diminution in the number
of co-sharers, as has been held by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in
the case of voluntary alienations of undivided shares which, in the Madras
Presidency, are valid : Chinnu v. Kalimuthu, 35 Mad. 47."
Commissioner Of Wealth Tax. Kanpur Etc. ... vs Chander Sen Etc on 16 July, 1986
"11. This question has been considered by this Court in Commissioner of
Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Ors. v. Chander Sen and Ors. [1986] 161 ITR 370
(SC) where one of us (Sabyasachi Mukharji, J) observed that under the
Hindu Law, the moment a son is born, he gets a share in father's property
and become part of the coparcenary. His right accrues to him not on the
death of the father or inheritance from the father but with the very fact of
his birth. Normally, therefore whenever the father gets a property from
Page 7 of 12
7 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 28-08-2024 06:44:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:109559
EFA-41-2022 2024:PHHC: 109559
whatever source, from the grandfather or from any other source, be it
separated property or not, his son should have a share in that and it will
become part of the joint Hindu family of his son and grandson and other
members who form joint Hindu family with him. This Court observed that
this position has been affected by Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act,
1956 and, therefore, after the Act, when the son inherited the property in
the situation contemplated by Section 8, he does not take it as Kar of his
own undivided family but takes it in his individual capacity."
Valliammai Achi vs Nagappa Chettiar & Ors on 23 January, 1967
9.8 Hon'ble Supreme Court then referred to another paragraph
No.339 of Mulla on Hindu Law and further referred to a decision rendered in
Valliammai Achi Vs. Nagappa Chettiar and others, AIR 1967 SC 1153 and
held as under: -