Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.20 seconds)Section 14 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Likhmi Chand And Ors. vs Smt. Sukhdevi And Ors. on 8 May, 1970
Thus this court has taken the view that when specific property is allotted to a Hindu widow in lieu of her right of maintenance and residence she gets proprietary interest therein. The same view is taken in Lakhmi Chand v. Smt. Sukhdevi.
Sheojee Tiwary And Anr. vs Prema Kuer And Ors. on 28 November, 1963
In this view of ours we are supported by the decisions in Sheojee Tiwary v. Prema Kuer, AIR1964 Pat 1,87; Bindbashni Singh v. Smt. Sheorati Kuer, AIR 1971 Pat 104: Bapusaheb Bhausaheb Patil v. Smt. Gangabai, AIR 1972 Bom 16; Smt. Gaumati v. Shanker LaL AIR 1974 Rai 147 and Rai Kumar v. Prem. Parkash Kaur, AIR 1972 Punj 458.
Badri Pershad vs Smt. Kanso Devi on 26 August, 1969
But this point is now settled by the Supreme Court in Badri Pershad case (supra). The Court observed that sub-section (2) of section 14 is more in the nature of a proviso or an exception to sub-section (1) and comes into operation only if acquisition in any of the methods indicated therein is made for first time, without there being any pre-existing right in the female Hindu who is in possession of property. Sub-section (2) of section 14 would apply to cases in which the instrument mentioned therein is the source or foundation of the right or title to the property. It must be noticed that the explanation appended to sub-section (1) of' section 14 assumes that the property acquired by a Hindu female in lieu of maintenance is~ a property of limited ownership. This explanation is important because of Section 4 of~ the Act provides, so far relevant, that save as, otherwise expressly provided any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect to any matter for which provision is made in this Act.
Section 4 in The Hindu Women's Rights To Property Act, 1937 [Entire Act]
Section 31 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Bapusaheb Bhausaheb Patil And Anr. vs Gangabai And Ors. on 14 October, 1970
In this view of ours we are supported by the decisions in Sheojee Tiwary v. Prema Kuer, AIR1964 Pat 1,87; Bindbashni Singh v. Smt. Sheorati Kuer, AIR 1971 Pat 104: Bapusaheb Bhausaheb Patil v. Smt. Gangabai, AIR 1972 Bom 16; Smt. Gaumati v. Shanker LaL AIR 1974 Rai 147 and Rai Kumar v. Prem. Parkash Kaur, AIR 1972 Punj 458.