Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.23 seconds)
Tarabai W/O Mudgal Rao Kulkarni vs Venkatesh S/O Kishan Rao on 16 June, 2014 cites

Gopal Singh & Anr vs Dile Ram (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors on 6 October, 1987

The learned counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of Gopal Singh and another Vs. Dile Ram supra that in a decision where a Hindu widow having a life interest, made a gift of the properties before coming into force of the Act, such gift would be unaffected is not a preposition which is in dispute. In that decision, the further circumstance was; there being a compromise decree that the said gift deed was ineffective and the same having been so declared as ineffective, the Hindu widow had thereafter made a Will in respect of the properties subsequent to coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and it was held that the Will was valid. If the second part of the circumstance there is taken into consideration, the said decision also would not advance the case of the plaintiff in any manner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 8 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Daya Singh (Dead) Through L.Rs. & Anr vs Dhan Kaur on 5 March, 1974

"4. In the case before this Court the two women were in possession of property whose last male holder, who had died before coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, was their step son. They were not, therefore in legal possession of the properties of the last male holder. The question that had to be decided was whether because of the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act they were entitled to succeed under Section 8 and the further question whether Section 14 would be attracted as they were actually in possession. It was held that as they were not legally in possession Section 14 would not apply. It was in that context that it was said that where a male Hindu died before the Act came into force i.e., where succession opened before the Act, Section 8 of the Act will have no application. The point that succession might open not only when the male Hindu died but also subsequently again when a limited owner who succeeds him dies was not taken into account. There was no need and no occasion to consider such a contingency in that case. There 23 was the further fact that the last male holder was succeeded on his death by persons who were then his nearest heirs and the property vested in them could not be divested by the Hindu Succession Act coming into force subsequently though this fact was not adverted to in the judgment. This Court had therefore also no occasion to consider the effect of the earlier decisions on the question as to what happens when a female limited owner, whether she is a widow, mother or daughter who succeeds the last male holder dies.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 18 - A Alagiriswami - Full Document

Naresh Kumari (Dead) By Lrs, And Another vs Shakshi Lal (Dead) By Lrs, And Another on 5 February, 1999

12. The primary contention of the plaintiff is that Bhimabai as a Hindu female can claim an absolute right in respect of the suit properties only if she was possessed of the same as on the 33 date of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 coming into force and since admittedly she had parted with the suit properties much earlier and defendant Nos.1 and 2 claiming to have acquired the properties from Bhimabai having been challenged by the plaintiff on the premise that Bhimabai had no right to part with the properties when she had a limited interest in the same and the point of law on which the plaintiff sought to rest his case and which the Courts below have accepted that Bhimabai having parted with possession and having transferred the limited right that she could no longer lay claim to the same by virtue of Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act and therefore, on the death of Bhimabai, the plaintiff as reversioner could recover possession of the properties. It is this premise which is sought to be canvassed and in respect of which reliance is placed on the case of Smt. Naresh kumari Vs. Sakshi Lal supra to contend that once a female Hindu has parted with possession and conveyed the rights that she had over the property before the coming into force of the Hindu Succession 34 Act, 1956, she would have no right to reclaim the property and that in the instant case on hand, the defendants could seek to retain possession of the properties only if Bhima Bai had a right to recover the same as her absolute properties after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. However, the decision in Smt.Naresh Kumari -Vs- Sakshi Lal does not proceed on the basis, as the plaintiff would wish or seeks to interpret. On facts, it was a case where a widow who had a limited right in the property had conveyed the same by way of a sale deed in favour of another Hindu woman and with the coming into force of the 1956 Act when the sale was sought to be challenged on the ground that the vendor did not have an absolute interest in the property to convey the same. That challenge was sought to be defeated to contend that a limited interest if it were transferred in favour of a Hindu female, the same would blossom into an absolute title with the coming into force of the HS Act was negated in allowing the claim of reversioner. The difference being that the right was being 35 claimed by a female Hindu who had purchased a limited right from another female Hindu and therefore, the said decision would not advance the case of the plaintiff.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 20 - Full Document
1   2 Next