Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.65 seconds)The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Jaria Devi vs Shyam Sundar Agarwalla And Ors. on 3 June, 1957
In the case of Jaria Devi v. Shyam Sunder Agarwalla, , there is an observation of the Division Bench of this Court to the effect that in a simple case of partition wherein allotment was made according to shares, Sub-section (2) would not apply and the female Hindu would acquire absolute title under Section 14(1).
Ram Ayodhya Missir And Ors. vs Raghunath Missir And Ors. on 8 November, 1956
Four decisions of other High Courts were also cited, one each of Patna and Kerala and two of Andhra, reported in Ram Ayodhya Missir v. Raghunath Missir, (S) ; Pathumma Beebi v. Krishnan Asari, ; Venkamma v. Venkatareddi, and Annapurnamma v. Bhima, . None of these are well-considered decisions on the point under consideration. The view taken by me and stated above is consistent with the view expressed in other decisions of this Court and noticed before. In my judgment, the Hindu female acquires absolute title in properties allotted to her under a final decree passed prior to the Hindu Succession Act in a partition suit wherein she was declared to have restricted interest in the property. In the instant case, Prosadmoni became absolutely entitled to the properties allotted to her in the final decree passed in Suit No. 1970 of 1933 and on her death in 1959, the properties devolved on defendant No. 1 Tarasundari as her only heir under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. No other party has any interest in the estate.
Sm. Billabasini Datta And Ors. vs Dulal Chandra Dutta And Ors. on 6 May, 1957
Such a declaration of a pre-existing right in a property cannot be said to be an acquisition of property by a female Hindu. The preliminary decree in a partition suit does nothing more than declare the existing rights of the parties. In the case of a female Hindu, the declaration must necessarily be to the effect that she would have restricted estate of a Hindu female. It cannot be said that by such a declaration in the preliminary decree the Hindu female acquires a share in the joint family property. Nor does the direction in the preliminary decree to allot to her property to be held by her in severally in lieu of her undivided share in the joint estate amounts to acquisition of new property by her. The preliminary decree in a partition suit cannot, therefore, be said to be a decree within the meaning of Sub-section (2) of Section 14. It has been so held by Bachawat, J. in the case Billabashini Dutt v. Dulal Chandra Datta, and by me in the case of Krishna Dassi Saha v. Akhil Chunder Saha, . In either case the ground on which the preliminary decree was held not to be hit by the mischief of Section 14(2) is different from what is stated above. The Court, however, was not called upon in those cases to decide the effect of Sub-section (2) of Section 14 on a final decree passed prior to the Act in which a female Hindu is allotted properties to be held by her in Hindu Women's Estate. The question came, up for consideration in this Court in two cases, to which my attention has been drawn.
Section 32 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Vadrevu Annapurnamma vs Vadrevu Bhima Sankararao And Ors. on 11 September, 1959
Four decisions of other High Courts were also cited, one each of Patna and Kerala and two of Andhra, reported in Ram Ayodhya Missir v. Raghunath Missir, (S) ; Pathumma Beebi v. Krishnan Asari, ; Venkamma v. Venkatareddi, and Annapurnamma v. Bhima, . None of these are well-considered decisions on the point under consideration. The view taken by me and stated above is consistent with the view expressed in other decisions of this Court and noticed before. In my judgment, the Hindu female acquires absolute title in properties allotted to her under a final decree passed prior to the Hindu Succession Act in a partition suit wherein she was declared to have restricted interest in the property. In the instant case, Prosadmoni became absolutely entitled to the properties allotted to her in the final decree passed in Suit No. 1970 of 1933 and on her death in 1959, the properties devolved on defendant No. 1 Tarasundari as her only heir under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. No other party has any interest in the estate.
Sm. Krishna Dassi Saha vs Akhil Ch. Saha And Anr. on 28 May, 1958
Such a declaration of a pre-existing right in a property cannot be said to be an acquisition of property by a female Hindu. The preliminary decree in a partition suit does nothing more than declare the existing rights of the parties. In the case of a female Hindu, the declaration must necessarily be to the effect that she would have restricted estate of a Hindu female. It cannot be said that by such a declaration in the preliminary decree the Hindu female acquires a share in the joint family property. Nor does the direction in the preliminary decree to allot to her property to be held by her in severally in lieu of her undivided share in the joint estate amounts to acquisition of new property by her. The preliminary decree in a partition suit cannot, therefore, be said to be a decree within the meaning of Sub-section (2) of Section 14. It has been so held by Bachawat, J. in the case Billabashini Dutt v. Dulal Chandra Datta, and by me in the case of Krishna Dassi Saha v. Akhil Chunder Saha, . In either case the ground on which the preliminary decree was held not to be hit by the mischief of Section 14(2) is different from what is stated above. The Court, however, was not called upon in those cases to decide the effect of Sub-section (2) of Section 14 on a final decree passed prior to the Act in which a female Hindu is allotted properties to be held by her in Hindu Women's Estate. The question came, up for consideration in this Court in two cases, to which my attention has been drawn.
Pathumma Beebi vs Krishnan Asari And Ors. on 16 August, 1960
Four decisions of other High Courts were also cited, one each of Patna and Kerala and two of Andhra, reported in Ram Ayodhya Missir v. Raghunath Missir, (S) ; Pathumma Beebi v. Krishnan Asari, ; Venkamma v. Venkatareddi, and Annapurnamma v. Bhima, . None of these are well-considered decisions on the point under consideration. The view taken by me and stated above is consistent with the view expressed in other decisions of this Court and noticed before. In my judgment, the Hindu female acquires absolute title in properties allotted to her under a final decree passed prior to the Hindu Succession Act in a partition suit wherein she was declared to have restricted interest in the property. In the instant case, Prosadmoni became absolutely entitled to the properties allotted to her in the final decree passed in Suit No. 1970 of 1933 and on her death in 1959, the properties devolved on defendant No. 1 Tarasundari as her only heir under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. No other party has any interest in the estate.
Karri Venkamma vs Karri Venkatareddi And Anr. on 13 November, 1956
Four decisions of other High Courts were also cited, one each of Patna and Kerala and two of Andhra, reported in Ram Ayodhya Missir v. Raghunath Missir, (S) ; Pathumma Beebi v. Krishnan Asari, ; Venkamma v. Venkatareddi, and Annapurnamma v. Bhima, . None of these are well-considered decisions on the point under consideration. The view taken by me and stated above is consistent with the view expressed in other decisions of this Court and noticed before. In my judgment, the Hindu female acquires absolute title in properties allotted to her under a final decree passed prior to the Hindu Succession Act in a partition suit wherein she was declared to have restricted interest in the property. In the instant case, Prosadmoni became absolutely entitled to the properties allotted to her in the final decree passed in Suit No. 1970 of 1933 and on her death in 1959, the properties devolved on defendant No. 1 Tarasundari as her only heir under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. No other party has any interest in the estate.
1