Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.50 seconds)Section 6 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Section 8 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Prakash vs Phulavati . on 16 October, 2015
11. Counsel for the Defendants on the other hand submits that the
property constitutes a `dwelling house‟. Canara Bank vacated the property
on 22nd August, 2001 and on the said date, when the eviction suit was filed
the family was occupying the entire property. It was further submitted that
the repealing of Section 23 of the HSA came into effect only on 9th
September 2005 and a daughter was not to be treated as a coparcener prior
20th December, 2004. The Defendant relies on Phulavati (Supra).
G.Sekar vs Geetha & Ors on 15 April, 2009
In G.Sekar Vs Geetha (2009) 6 SCC
99 the Supreme Court, while considering the effect of Section 23 of HSA
observed:
Narashimaha Murthy vs Smt. Susheelabai & Ors on 17 April, 1996
In Narashimaha Murthy v. Susheelabai (1996) 3 SCC 644, the
Supreme Court, while considering the dynamics between Section 8 and
Section 23, as also the rights of a female heir to seek partition observed:
Article 134A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Ganduri Koteshwaramma & Anr vs Chakiri Yanadi & Anr on 12 October, 2011
In Phulavati (supra), the Supreme Court considered Ganduri
Koteshwaramma & Anr v. Chakiri Yanadi &Anr., 2011 9 SCC 788
(hereinafter, „Ganduri‟), S. Sai Reddy v. S. Narayana Reddy (1991) 3 SCC
647 and the various judgments on this issue and held that the amendment to
Section 6 of the HSA would be prospective.