Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.23 seconds)Section 6 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Prakash vs Phulavati . on 16 October, 2015
24. Before concluding, as regards the legal point that
Sri.Giridhar, learned counsel, raised by referring to decision
of Supreme court in Prakash Vs. Phulavati, we opine that
the marriage of the plaintiff much before commencement of
22
central amendment to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act has
no relevance to the actual issue urged in this appeal.
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Shakuntala vs Dr.Basavaraj on 17 July, 2014
In the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this
Court in Smt. Shakuntala and others Vs. Basavaraj and
others (supra) the question dealt with was about devolution
of self acquired property of a male Hindu. One Basavenappa
during his lifetime purchased some property which was his
self acquisition. He died intestate in the year 1972 and in a
partition that was effected on 20.4.2004, certain property fell
to the share of Basavaraj, the son of Basavanappa and father
of the plaintiffs. It was contented that the first defendant
Basavaraj succeeded to ancestral property. In this
circumstance, it was held that succession to self acquired
property of male was in accordance with Section 8 of the
Hindu Succession Act, not Section 6.
Rohit Chauhan vs Surinder Singh & Ors on 15 July, 2013
In Rohit Chauhan's case (supra) also, the
Supreme Court considered the same aspect and reiterated
that so long as, on partition, an ancestral property remains
in the hands of a single person, it has to be treated as
separate property and such person shall be entitled to
18
dispose it of. If a son is subsequently born, the alienation
made before the birth of the son cannot be questioned, but
the moment son is born, the property acquires coparcenary
characteristics and the son acquires interest in it by birth
and becomes a coparcener.
Shyam Narayan Prasad vs Krishna Prasad on 2 July, 2018
19. The Supreme Court, in its recent decision, in the
case of Shyam Narayan Prasad Vs. Krishna Prasad and
others [(2018) 7 SCC 646], has taken the same view which
is as follows:
Section 96 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 101 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Wealth Tax. Kanpur Etc. ... vs Chander Sen Etc on 16 July, 1986
In the case of Chandersen
(supra) the facts are that Rangilal and his son Chander had
a division between them of the family business. Thereafter
Rangilal and Chandersen started a partnership business,
which was assessed to income tax. The father and the son
were also assessed to income tax for their individual income.
Rangilal died on July 17, 1965. At that time Chandersen
was the only class I heir of Rangilal as the latter's wife and
mother were not alive. This being the factual position, an
amount of Rs.1,85,043/- which had been credited to the
individual account of Rangilal from the partnership business
passed on to Rangilal's son, Chandersen. Since this amount
was assessed to tax treating it as income to the joint family
consisting of Chandersen and his son, Chandersen took
objection to treating that amount as income to joint family.
The matter reached Supreme Court ultimately in view of
conflicting decisions by other appellate authorities. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that whatever the amount that
was available to the credit of Rangilal's account was his
14
separate property and on his death, nobody other than
Chandersen could succeed; even Chandersen's son could
not be considered as class-I heir, as son of a predeceased
son and not son of a living son, is recognized as class I heir
according to Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act. The
conclusion, in this background, given by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court is that the amount that passed on to
Chandersen was according to Section 8 of Hindu Succession
Act.