Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)Section 14 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957
Punithavalli Ammal vs Ramalingam (Minor) And Anr on 4 March, 1970
In the decision in Punithavalli Ammal v. Ramalingam, , the Supreme Court had held after referring to the relative provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1955, and the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, that the full ownership conferred on a Hindu female under section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act is not defeasible by the adoption made by her to her deceased husband after the Act came into force. The Supreme Court further observed that the rights conferred on a Hindu female under section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act are not restricted or limited by any rule of Hindu law, and that provision makes a clear departure from the Hindu law texts or rules, as interpreted by the courts, that on adoption by; a Hindu widow, the adopted son acquired all the rights of an aurasa son and those rights related back to the date of death of the adoptive father, and they cannot be applied to an adoption made subsequent to the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Smt. Sitabai And Anr. vs Ramchandra on 20 August, 1969
The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the assessee in Sitabai v. Ramchandra, , had not dealt with this question of divesting of the properties. That decision related only to the relationship of an adopted son to the other members of the Hindu undivided family. The decision was to effect that the person adopted by the widow becomes a son not only of the widow but also of the deceased husband and, therefore, if the husband had a daughter, she will become the sister of the adopted son. The decision does not deal with the inheritance relating to the deceased adoptive father when an adoption was made by the widow, nor to its relating back, nor the consequences of adoption relating to the properties already vested in a widow under section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. As already stated, the other two decisions are clear on the question to the effect that it will not dives the properties already vested in the widow.
Pushpa Devi vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, New Delhi on 30 August, 1977
5. On the question whether there is any throwing of the properties by the widow into the hotchpot of the joint family properties, we agree with the Tribunal that the contention of the assessee will have to be rejected. Firstly, as held by the Supreme Court in Pushpa Devi v. CIT [1977] 109 ITR 730, a female member of the joint family could not blend her separate property, even if she were an absolute owner thereof, with the joint family property, and that the right to blend was limited only to coparceners. She could achieve the purpose of making it Hindu undivided family property by gifting it to the Hindu undivided family or allowing the Hindu undivided family to purchase it from her. In this case, no such throwing into the hotchpot can be accepted. Secondly, the question could not also arise for the assessment year 1970-71, since the return itself was filed in June 1970, and the only action of filing the return was claimed to be the throwing of the properties into the hotchpot. The relevant date for the purpose of the Wealth-tax Act is December 31, 1969, with reference to the assessment year 1970-71, and as on the relevant date, the properties had not been thrown into the hotchpot, that question also could not arise.
1