Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.29 seconds)Section 6 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Nana Tawker vs Ramachandra Tawker And Anr. on 17 November, 1908
NARASIMHAN reported in AIR 1932 MAD 361, it was
noticed that the question that was answered in the affirmative
in Nana Tawker Vs. Ramachandra Tawker (supra) was referred
to a Bench for re-consideration on the grounds that some
doubt has been thrown on the correctness of that decision in a
later Madras case, and it has been expressly dissented from
by the Chief Court of Oudh.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Karnataka Prohibition Act, 1961
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
The Hindu Women's Rights To Property Act, 1937
(Minor) Medai Dalavoi R. Ranganatha ... vs M.D.T. Kumaraswami, Mudaliar And Ors. on 24 September, 1958
In the case of
M.D.R.RANGANATHA VS. M.D.T.KUMARASWAMI reported
in AIR 1959 MADRAS 253, in the same position, the right of
a widow having regard to the Hindu Women's Right to
Property Act, 1937, was also considered. The decisions a
fortiori were also considered and it was held that the
separated property got by Hindu father at partition of the joint
family properties with his sons does not become coparcenary
23
property in the hands of his divided sons, who had separated
from him during his life time and therefore, after his death,
each son takes the property as a tenants in common and not
as joint tenants.
Mt. Ram Dei vs Mt. Gyarsi And Ors. on 8 December, 1948
19. Similarly, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High
Court, Lucknow Bench, in the case of RAM DEI VS. GYARSI
reported in AIR (36) 1949 ALLAHABAD 545 which was
cited by the learned counsel Shri Vivek Mehta, it was held
that: