Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.28 seconds)Sandeep Mehra vs Sajesh Kumar Khanna on 8 September, 2011
Hence, I the testator
hereby bequeath that so long as I am
alive I shall be exclusive owner of my
entire movable and immovable
property of every kind. During life
time I shall do with my property as I
please. After my death my entire
property, movable/immovable shall
vest in Smt. Maha Rani, D/o Lala Jai
Dayal Kapur, my wife and all my
money and shares in different
companies and Mills/Banks or
ornaments, clothes and utensils etc.;,
shall also vest in Smt. Maha Rani, my
Suit No. 416/08
Asha Mehra Vs. Rajesh Khanna & Ors.
Section 30 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Article 57 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Limitation Act, 1963
S. S. Munna Lal vs S. S. Rajkumar And Others on 23 February, 1962
what right she got absolute under
Section 14(1) or limited under the will
by operation of section 14(2) of the Act.
The purpose and objective of section
14 has been explained earlier. Its
reach, too, is very wife. In V.
tulasamma v. shesha Reddy it was
held that the explanation appended to
the section enlarge its ambit further by
expanding the meaning of word
'property' to include both movable and
immovable properties acquired by a
female Hindu in any of the manner
mentioned therein. Thus any property
possessed by a female Hindu if it is
covered in subsection (1), then by
operation of law she becomes absolute
owner of it. The meaning of the words
'possessed' and ' any property' was
explained to have been used in wide
and broad sense as including whatever
the 'kind of property' and possessed
either actually or constructively or in
'any form recognized by law' . The
wide and extensive meaning to
'advance social purpose of legislation'
was recognised as far back as 1962 in
S. S. Munna Lal case was reiterated in
Mangal Singh V. Shrimati Rattno
reaffirmed in Seth Badri Prasad V.
Kanso Devi advanced further in
Tulasama case and has not been
deviated since then.
G. Appaswami Chettiar And Anr vs R. Sarangapani Chettiar & Ors on 22 March, 1978
In
G. Appaswami Chettiar V. R.
Sarangapani Chettiar it was held by
this court that where a female got a life
estate under a will executed by her
father, she was not entitled to claim
absolute rights under section 14(1)
and her claim was covered by section
14(2).
Musammat Bhagwati vs Musammat Ram Kali on 7 March, 1939
movable and immovable property so
that after his death there may not be
any dispute among his
heirs/executors. I thte testator has
purchased one storey house pucca
built up within its boundary(three
storey) No. 710 Siauted in Nai Basti,
Katra Neel, Delhi City, Ward II which
has been purchased with my own
resources, vide Auction Certificate
dated 18.05.1928, issued by the Court
of Sheikh Abdul Majid, Subjudge, 1st
class Delhi in a Civil Suit No. 300 of
1925 and Revision Partition No. 468 of
1927 Mst. Bhagwati Vs. Kali Charan
etc., in connection with Auction of
House dated 21.02.1928 confirmed by
the court mentioned above on
05.05.1928 and constructed it. I am
exclusive owner and in possession
thereof.