Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.46 seconds)The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Section 131 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Section 130 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Ramachandra Shenoy And Another vs Mrs. Hilda Brite And Others on 1 April, 1963
In Ramachandra Shenoy v. Mrs. Hilda Brite (AIR 1964 SC
1323) the apex court held as follows:
Section 88 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Smt. Talkeshwari Devi vs Ram Ran Bikat Prasad Singh And Anr. on 17 February, 1965
In
Talkeshwari v. Ram Ran Bikat (AIR 1966 Patna 40) it was held that a
will must be construed as a whole, giving attention to every provision
therein; intention of the person making the grant must be gathered from the
language employed by the granter, the plain and natural meaning is to be
given to the words used; and if there is any doubt, the document is to be
construed as to lean to vesting. It was held that where a legacy was
bequeathed to A for life and after A's death to B and C in equal shares and
with condition that in case B or C dies issueless survivor would get entire
property absolutely, in the event of death of B issueless after A's death the
subsequent legacy in favour of C does not take effect. In that case, it was
held that the property was vested in equal shares in B and C after A's death.
As the will did not mention the time for the occurrence of the subsequent
uncertain event, namely, the death of either B or C without any issue, S.124
applied and the subsequent legacy in favour of C after B's death issueless
A.S. 504/1999 :17:
Section 120 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Sadhu Singh vs Gurdwara Sahib Narike & Ors on 8 September, 2006
24. Sadhu Singh v. Gurdwara Sahib Narike ((2006) 8 SCC 75) was a
case where one R held some self-acquired properties. He had no progeny
and only his wife and his two nephews were alive and he wanted to dispose
of the property during his life time. He was the absolute owner of the
property and wanted to provide management of the properties in such a
manner that after his death his wife so long as she remains alive will be the
absolute owner and party in possession of all the properties and after her
death rights over the properties would be inherited by his two nephews.
During her lifetime, his wife, however, would not be entitled either to
transfer the properties by way of any will or to mortgage or sell them to
A.S. 504/1999 :26:
Thazhath Valappil Prasanth vs Kalliani And Ors. on 23 February, 2007
In Prasanth v. Kalliani (2007(2) KLT 992) a learned Judge of
this Court held that in the case of wills when there is any inconsistency
between earlier or subsequent part or specific clauses interse contained
therein the subsequent part, clause or portion prevails over the earlier part
because testator is competent to change his mind and create another bequest
in the place of bequest already made.