Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.38 seconds)Pushpa Devi vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, New Delhi on 30 August, 1977
In Pushpalatha's case, stated supra (AIR 1977 SC 2230) the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the expression 'blending' is inapposite in
the case of a Hindu female, who puts her separate property, be it her
absolute property or limited estate, in the joint family stock and also held
that a Hindu female therefore is not a coparcener, even the right to reunite is
limited under the Hindu Law to male and a female member cannot throw
her property into the hotchpotch and even her own assertion will not
tantamount to blending or throwing into the hotchpotch.
Narayani Ammal And Anr. vs Govindaswami Naidu on 28 October, 1974
In the Kuppusamy Naidu's case cited supra, the mere fact that
the respondent/plaintiff joined with others in executing the said sale deed
shall not be enough to show that she treated plaint 'A' schedule properties as
the joint family properties of her father. The fact that the father was allowed
to alienate items 3 and 4 to a third party to meet the marriage expenses of
the respondent/plaintiff cannot be projected as one supporting the case of
the appellant/defendant. Even if a women permits her property to be handled
by male members of the family, the same cannot be taken to intend that
there was abandonment or gift
K.Natarajan vs Mrs.Gopalasundari on 6 September, 2011
5. The case of K.Natarajan vs. Gopalasundari and others, reported
in (2011)5 LW 341, has held that irrespective of the fact that the property
was purchased by a Hindu female out of her own funds, the said property
shall only be her sridhana property – such sridhana property shall devolve
24/39
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.Nos.2060 and 2061 of 2003
upon her female heirs namely her daughters on her demise and not on her
sons.
Muthusamy vs A.Maruchamy on 17 March, 2015
4. The case of Muthusamy and others vs. A.Maruchamy and
another, reported in 2015 SCC online Mad 7240, the Madras High Court
has held that the property acquired by woman by any source even by
purchase out of her own earnings to be treated as her sridhana property for
purpose of inheritance under Mitakshara Hindu Law.
R. Rajathy Ammal vs Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax on 19 June, 1986
24. Our High Court in Rajathy Ammal's case cited supra, (1987
ITR MDS 605) has held that 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 with limited only
to coparceners. She could achieve the purpose of making it Hindu undivided
28/39
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.Nos.2060 and 2061 of 2003
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 throwing
into the hotchpotch can be accepted.
1