Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 37 (0.57 seconds)Section 8 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 4 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Ved Parkash vs Naresh Kumar & Ors. on 17 January, 2023
77. Further, in Ved Prakash v. Naresh Kumar and Ors., 2023 SCC Online
Del 213 the following is held:
State Bank Of India vs Ghamandi Ram (Dead) Through Shri Gurbax ... on 13 February, 1969
67. I have already discussed above in detail what is the nature and
characteristics of a coparcenary. (See: State Bank of India v. Ghamandi
Ram, (1969) 2 SCC 33). Bearing the same in mind, one important aspect
to be reiterated is that there can be no creation of a coparcenary by conduct
or agreement of parties but simply by operation of law.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs P.L. Karuppan Chettiar on 11 May, 1992
(Section 8). [See: Yudhishter (supra), CWT v. Chander Sen
(supra), Arshnoor (supra), Commissioner of Income Tax v. PL
Karuppan Chettiar (1992) 197 ITR 646 SC]
vi. A coparcenary property (before 1956) shall retain its character
even after 1956 as such and devolve as per Section 6 of the 1956
Act.
Mst. Rukhmabai vs Lala Laxminarayan And Others on 17 November, 1959
Same proposition has been followed
in Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxminarayan [(1960) 2 SCR 253 :