Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.57 seconds)
Sri Jookanti Ramulu vs Income-Tax Officer on 27 August, 1981 cites

Gurupad Khandappa Magdum vs Hirabai Khandappa Magdum And Ors on 27 April, 1978

7. We have already mentioned that Viswanadham passed away on 20-5-1975. We now have the decision of the Supreme Court in Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum [1981] 129 ITR 440 which deals with the relevant provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. Section 6 of the aforesaid Act deals with the devolution of interest which a male Hindu has in a Mitakshari coparcenary property. There is a proviso to Section 6 which becomes applicable since there was a widow and interest of the deceased in the coparcenary property has to devolve according to the proviso. In this case, the devolution will be on the basis of intestate succession and not by survivorship. We have to assume, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, having regard to the provisions of Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Hindu Succession Act and the relevant Rules, that there was notional partition immediately prior to the death of the deceased. In the case before the Supreme Court, it was held that having regard to the observations in Mulla's Hindu Law, 14th Edition, at page 403 (para 315) that the notional partition would be between the deceased and his son and the wife who were left behind. However, this is the position all over India excepting in South India as pointed out in para 315 of Mulla's Commentary to which the Supreme Court has referred, since the practice of allotting shares on partition to wives in the South has become obsolete except where the personal law by custom so provided in respect of persons who had migrated from North. Therefore, the notional partition in the present case would have to be assumed to be between Viswanadham and Ramulu. Rajeswaramma would not be entitled to any share on that notional partition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 164 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document
1