Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.31 seconds)Section 8 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975
State Of Maharashtra vs Narayan Rao Sham Rao Deshmukh & Ors on 19 March, 1985
27.Though Bhavani Amma acquired ownership of a definite
share in the family property on the death of Vijayan and she did
not have any interest in the property which remained with the
other members of the family, she continued to be a member of
the family as she did not separate herself from it. The authority to
hold so is the decision of the Supreme Court in State of
Maharashtra v. Narayan Rao Sham Rao Deshmukh and
others (AIR 1985 SC 716), wherein in paragraph 9 it is
observed:
Gurupad Khandappa Magdum vs Hirabai Khandappa Magdum And Ors on 27 April, 1978
22. Now it may be examined whether the apex court has in
Gurupad Khandappa's case held that the joint family would
come to an end with the notional partition. The following
R.S.A.No.1231 of 2005 17
observation of the court is relevant: "What is therefore required
to be assumed is that a partition had in fact taken place between
the deceased and his coparcener immediately before his death".
So what is assumed is that a partition took place between the
deceased and his coparceners. There is no assumption that a
partition took place among all the coparceners. It is also to be
noted that the court has also observed as follows:
Theja V. Nagarjuna vs V. Nagarjuna on 11 February, 2000
18. The decision in Gurupad Khandappa's case(supra)
was followed in Theja V. Nagarjuna v. Nagarjuna (AIR 2000
SC 3529)and Anar Devi and others v. Parmeshwari Devi
and others (2006)8 SCC 656). In the former case when a
coparcener died, one of his children filed a suit for partition. In
the latter case there were only two coparceners, father and son
(adopted). The former had two daughters also. The adopted son
filed a suit for partition.
Section 7 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Anar Devi And Ors vs Parmeshwari Devi And Ors on 18 September, 2006
18. The decision in Gurupad Khandappa's case(supra)
was followed in Theja V. Nagarjuna v. Nagarjuna (AIR 2000
SC 3529)and Anar Devi and others v. Parmeshwari Devi
and others (2006)8 SCC 656). In the former case when a
coparcener died, one of his children filed a suit for partition. In
the latter case there were only two coparceners, father and son
(adopted). The former had two daughters also. The adopted son
filed a suit for partition.
Inspector Assistant Commissioner Of ... vs V.K. Ramunni Panikkar, Receiver Of ... on 5 October, 1971
15. The statute which came up for consideration before the
Supreme Court in The Inspector Assistant Commissioner of
Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax, Kozhikode v.
V.K.Ramunni Panikkar, Receiver of Zamorin's estate
(1972)4 SCC 435) was Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act
1950. The provision in section 7(3) of the Hindu Succession Act
required to be interpreted. The subject matter of the litigation
was 'sthanam' property. The observation made by the Supreme
Court in that case which is relevant for the purpose of this appeal
is as follows: